search_by_isrc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a single GET /search call and that resolution is exact, but it does not describe behavior on no-match, multiple matches, or the shape of the returned track data. The quota note adds value, but several behavioral gaps remain.

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 succinct sentences deliver the core purpose, the match mechanism, the use case, and the quota cost. The description is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and has 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 simple three-parameter search tool without annotations or an output schema, the description plus detailed schema provides sufficient context. The quota, exact-match behavior, and catalog-use frame are covered. A richer description of failure modes or result shape would push it higher, but it is not incomplete for typical use.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds the `isrc:` filter detail and frames the tool's purpose, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 specifies a precise operation: resolving an exact track from an ISRC via the `isrc:` search filter. It also frames this as the 'dedupe/relink anchor for catalog work', clearly differentiating it from general-purpose searches like search_tracks or search_deep.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need exact ISRC-based track resolution for deduplication or relinking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'exact' and 'dedupe/relink' framing makes the intended scenario obvious.

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