find_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Search' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'live tool registry' signals current registry state, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect posture, auth assumptions, or result behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 that states the action, the resource, and the user benefit with zero filler. Every phrase 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?

This is a low-complexity search tool with fully documented parameters, so the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. It omits explicit return-shape details, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query and limit thoroughly. The description adds a little context by saying the search is by 'name or description substring,' but it does not substantially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('live tool registry'), and matching mechanism ('by name or description substring'). It clearly states the job it accomplishes ('discover which of the 500+ tools handles a job'), which separates it from content-search siblings like search_tracks and search_albums.

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 makes it clear this is for discovering tools in the registry, not for searching music content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'live tool registry' framing and sibling names make the appropriate use case unambiguous.

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