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

Annotations already cover safety: read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail: result fields returned (title, artist, release date, links) and a hard cap of 25 tracks. It doesn't explain pagination or empty-result behavior, but the annotations set a lower bar.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the action and scope, and doesn't wander. The bilingual duplication increases length, but it's purposeful for a Polish-language API and doesn't obscure the main point.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description doesn't need to explain return structures. It covers the tool's purpose, the optional artist filter, the result cap, and the returned fields, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 1–25 limit range and the default of 10. The description adds only that the artist filter is optional and restricted to one artist; it doesn't contribute much beyond the schema and stays at baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search track pages on TopAIMuza.pl') and narrows scope to title plus an optional single artist filter. That makes it easy to tell apart from search_artists and get_artist without opening any schema.

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?

The text explains that the artist filter is optional and limited to one artist, which implies the intended usage. It doesn't say when to prefer this tool over search_artists or get_artist, and there are no explicit exclusions or preconditions.

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