search_music

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-catalog reach are covered. The description adds only the catalog scope ('production music'), and says nothing about pagination limits, default sort ordering, licensing/watermark implications, or result cardinality beyond what the output schema and annotations already imply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though for a 13-parameter tool the extreme brevity leaves no room for the operational notes an agent actually needs.

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 13 optional parameters, an output schema, and non-obvious defaults (per_page defaults to 20 with a hard cap of 50, sort defaults to 'score'), the description omits everything an agent needs for correct invocation strategy. It never mentions pagination behavior or that results likely require further calls to preview or license.

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 69%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds modest conceptual mapping by naming 'tempo' and 'length', which helps translate user language to bpm_from/bpm_to and duration_from/duration_to, but it says nothing about query, sort, page, per_page, vocals, or instrumental.

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') and a specific resource ('Shutterstock's production music'), plus the facets it filters on. The asset type alone distinguishes it cleanly from siblings search_images, search_videos, and search_editorial.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding music tracks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over find_similar or how to move from a search result to licensing (get_asset, list_licenses), and no note that all filters are optional.

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