statsfm_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search the stats.fm catalog' — it does not disclose that this queries a third-party service (possible rate limits/auth needs), what the default return shape is, or how results are ordered. 'Search' weakly implies read-only, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words — verb, resource, and scope all appear immediately. It is efficiently sized, though slightly under-specified; a second sentence about when to prefer it over siblings would have earned its place.

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?

The schema is rich and fully documents parameters, so invocation details are covered. However, the sibling set contains many ambiguity-prone search tools, and the description does nothing to help an agent select statsfm_search over them. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the critical selection context needed for correct 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 query, type, limit, and response_format fully. The description's parenthetical entity list lightly echoes the 'type' parameter's schema description without adding new meaning. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the stats.fm catalog', and enumerates the entity types covered in parentheses. It is clear about what it does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling search tools (search, search_advanced, search_fresh, search_tracks, etc.), leaving the agent to infer that 'stats.fm catalog' is what separates it from the generic 'search' tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With roughly a dozen sibling search tools (search, search_history, search_saved_tracks, search_advanced, search_within_playlist, search_by_isrc, etc.), there is no statement of when statsfm_search is the right choice, when it is not, or which alternative to prefer.

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