scene_sampler_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and covers the key behavior: one /search call followed by one album peek per artist, plus the quota cost and the output shape. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but the core read-only pipeline and cost structure are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first conveys purpose and workflow, the second conveys quota/cost. The most important task information is front-loaded before the cost note.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the workflow, result type, and quota while the schema documents parameter details. It is slightly incomplete only in not describing what each response_format returns or when to route to a sibling, but an agent can still invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'scene/genre keyword' and indirectly relates max_artists to per-artist album peeks, but adds nothing further about market or response_format semantics.

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 composite operation: build a scene sampler by searching artists for a scene/genre keyword and converting each artist's newest release into a one-track-per-artist listening plan. This clearly distinguishes it from plain search tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so it misses the top score.

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 opening imperative 'Build a scene sampler' gives a concrete trigger and the rest of the sentence defines the workflow, making the intended use clear. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as search_artists or genre_dive_search, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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