search_deep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses paging behavior ('Fetches up to 5 pages of 10 results per requested type server-side'), deduplication ('dedupes by id'), and output style ('returns compact rows'). It does not mention rate limits, errors, or read-only status explicitly, but the search semantics and disclosed mechanics are substantial.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the tool's core function, the second explains mechanics, and the third provides a decision guide. The key constraint and differentiator are front-loaded.

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 tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description plus the full schema coverage is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the pagination cap, dedupe behavior, compact-row return style, and sibling routing. The only minor gap is the exact field structure of 'compact rows' and possible pagination edge cases, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 six parameters. The description adds context about pages and types ('5 pages of 10 results per requested type'), but most of that repeats the schema's 'Pages of 10 results to walk per type.' It does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the verb ('Paged catalog search'), the resource ('catalog'), and the key differentiator ('walks past the API limit of 10 results per type'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search, search_fresh, search_by_isrc, and whats_new, so an agent can identify this tool without inspecting schemas.

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 'Decision guide' sentence provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('use search_deep when you need >10 results/type') and names the alternatives for other cases. This leaves no ambiguity about when to prefer search_deep over its siblings.

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