search_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns a list of matching tracks with metadata', which is minimal. It does not disclose whether filters combine with AND/OR, if the query searches all fields, whether matching is exact/fuzzy, or that limit defaults to 50. These behaviors are important for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a bulleted Args section, and a Returns note. Every line provides value, and there is no redundant bloat. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool.

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 covers parameter semantics thoroughly, but lacks critical context about query behavior (e.g., how multiple filters interact, whether query is substring or full-text). It also doesn't mention that the output schema exists or what metadata fields are returned. Given the absence of annotations and the presence of many sibling search tools, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. All 9 parameters are explained with useful context: query is 'general', key has examples ('5A', '12B'), rating_min is bounded (0-5), and limit is described as max results. This significantly helps the agent select and populate parameters correctly.

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 'Search tracks in the rekordbox database' with a specific verb and resource. The Args section further clarifies this is a general multi-field search, distinguishing it from specialized siblings like get_tracks_by_key or get_tracks_by_bpm_range. However, the summary doesn't explicitly position it as a general-purpose alternative to those specialized tools.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_tracks_by_key, search_tracks_by_filename, or get_most_played_tracks. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter list.

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