Search KBK Tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (title, artist, genre, BPM, duration, AI disclosure, stream URL, track id), which is useful behavioral information. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but 'Find' implies no side effects, and no hidden destructive behavior is hinted.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and then lists the returned fields. No wasted words or redundant information; it is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 output schema and three optional parameters, the description provides the essential return fields and clarifies the search dimensions. It could mention default behavior of limit or ordering, but the schema covers the limit parameter, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that query and genre can be used separately or together ('or both'), and it restates that query matches title and artist, reinforcing the schema's meaning.

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 action ('Find tracks'), the resource ('KBK library'), and the search criteria (free-text query, genre, or both). It also lists the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track that likely retrieve a specific track by ID.

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 description implies usage for searching tracks by query or genre but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_track or list_playlists. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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