search_audiobooks

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 adds value beyond the schema by revealing the endpoint, the type restriction, the market limitation, and the quota class ('🟢 single'). It does not detail response format or pagination behavior, but for a search operation this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the market constraint, and the quota signal. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the seven parameters are fully documented in the schema and no output schema exists, the description provides the essential operational context: type restriction, market availability, and quota. It is slightly lean in not describing what the response looks like or how the market restriction interacts with default behavior, but it is still sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain-specific meaning by enumerating the only markets where audiobooks are available, which directly informs the possible values of the 'market' parameter. This goes beyond the schema's generic ISO code pattern, so a 4 is warranted.

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 and resource: 'Search audiobooks only', and reinforces it with the exact endpoint and type parameter (GET /search?type=audiobook). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_tracks or search_albums. The market availability note adds useful scope without obscuring the core action.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by noting that audiobooks are only available in specific markets, which tells the agent where this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use search for other content types', but the 'only' phrasing and market restriction imply the boundary. This is clear context with a meaningful exclusion, though not a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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