Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses fuzzy full-text matching (identical to max4.live) and filter behavior. Read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated. Lacks details on response format or error handling, but is informative for a search tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: first states purpose and scope, second explains matching, third gives a rich example. No redundant words, front-loaded with the most critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers search scope, matching mechanism, filters, and usage. However, it omits any description of the response format or fields, which would help an agent understand what is returned. Adequate but with a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example translating natural language into parameters (e.g., 'free to use' -> license=[free, cc]), and hints at implicit filter composition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'Max for Live devices for Ableton Live', with scope (~8,900 devices). It distinguishes from siblings 'get_device' (single device) and 'list_filters' (filter options) by focusing on search and browse.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear usage example ('Compose for natural language') and translates it into parameter values. Implicitly guides when to use this vs. sibling tools (search vs. single device or filter listing), but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.