search_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: catalog-wide scope versus library scope, plus per-type result limits and defaults. It does not mention whether an Apple Music subscription is required or any rate-limit/throttling behavior, leaving a modest gap for a search against an external service.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope distinction, followed by usage strategy, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information the schema does not carry, so the length is earned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. Combined with the fully documented parameters and the explicit routing to get_playlist_tracks, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates: it gives query examples, enumerates the four valid values for types with the default, and states the 1–25 range and default of 5 for limit. Nothing needed to call the tool is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (songs, albums, artists, playlists) and scope (all of Apple Music, not just the user's library). This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search_library without needing to open either 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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('whenever the user asks for music that may not be in their library') and a concrete strategy for mood/genre/era queries: search with types="playlists" then open results with get_playlist_tracks. It names the follow-up sibling tool explicitly.

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