Astra: search the library

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses search bounds (non-empty query, max 50 results, no pagination, no catalog listing). It also says results are 'opaque refs,' telling the agent not to expect human-readable metadata in the output.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then value-added context (entry-point, bounds) and follow-up. No filler words.

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?

The description provides essential workflow context (only way to resolve names), query constraints, and next-step tools. As a read-only search operation with robust annotations and schema coverage, it is complete without needing a return-value schema.

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 the schema already fully describes q, limit, and types. The description mentions 'non-empty query' and 'at most 50 results,' mirroring the schema's minLength and maximum, adding no new semantics. The phrase 'by name' reinforces q's purpose, but schema already says 'Search text.'

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 uses the specific verb 'search' with a clear resource ('local Astra music library') and output ('opaque refs'). It explicitly states this is the only way to get refs from names, differentiating it from sibling tools that require refs.

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?

It says 'This is the entry point for almost everything' and provides explicit follow-up guidance ('Follow up with astra_play, astra_enqueue, or astra_open'). It also excludes alternatives: 'nothing else in this server accepts a title or artist name, only a ref from here.'

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