Search Lightning FM catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the live-fetching behavior, the Nostr signature guarantee, the canonical nature of the data, and the default ordering. It does not mention potential latency, relay availability, or result shape, but for a search tool the disclosed traits are substantive and useful.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently adds key contextual facts (live source, signed results, canonical scope, browse behavior). Every sentence earns its place.

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/browse tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, data source, trust properties, and default ordering. It is missing explicit return-format details and error behavior, but the schema covers parameters and the description gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds one meaningful behavioral hint—that leaving all filters empty browses the whole catalog—but does not add meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search or browse') and resource ('Lightning FM's Nostr-native music catalog'), and further distinguishes it by specifying the event kind (31337) and the live relay source. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling tools get_artist and get_now_playing, which focus on singular or current-state data.

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?

It gives clear usage context: filters can be left empty to browse the entire catalog newest first, and the catalog is live and canonical rather than curated. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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