search_by_isrc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool performs one GET /search call, states the quota, and emphasizes the exact-match behavior. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects,' but the search/GET framing makes that sufficiently clear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, then packs quota and decision guidance into a few tight clauses. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 tool with a single required parameter and fully documented schema, the description includes quota, exact-match semantics, and a routing guide against sibling search tools. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to 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%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the conceptual `isrc:` filter context and does not need to repeat parameter details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Exact track resolution from an ISRC' via the `isrc:` search filter. It further distinguishes itself by calling itself 'the dedupe/relink anchor for catalog work.' This clearly separates it from broad search 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?

The description explicitly provides a decision guide: 'search_by_isrc for ISRC-only exact match; search/search_deep for general text, search_fresh for tag:new newness.' This names alternatives and the exact conditions that make this tool the right choice.

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