instrument_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses substring matching and an optional venue filter, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, pagination, result limits, case sensitivity, or whether an empty query returns all instruments.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and key matching behavior. The unexplained 'T0.' prefix is the only minor noise; otherwise every phrase contributes useful 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?

For a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the definition is too thin. It does not explain return shape, result ordering, pagination, limits, or error behavior, which an agent would need to invoke and interpret it confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It usefully explains that query matches title/id substrings and that venue is an optional filter, but it does not clarify query requiredness, allowed formats, case behavior, or whether empty query is meaningful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search instruments. It also clarifies that matching is by title/id substring with an optional venue filter, which makes the purpose clear without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling tools such as instrument_get.

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 wording implies usage for searching instruments by substring and optionally narrowing by venue. However, it does not say when to use this instead of instrument_get, nor does it state any exclusions, prerequisites, or expected result conditions.

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