search_pieces

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

The annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context: it returns a candidate list of official titles, composer names, opus numbers, durations, and piece IDs, which would have been missing without an output schema. Some details like pagination or rate limits are omitted, but these are not essential here.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line purpose, a short usage scenario, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the output format is explicitly described.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what input it expects, what the output looks like, and the intended use case. There are no significant missing details an agent would need to select and call this tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. It clarifies 'keyword' as a piece title, composer name, or fragment, which is more semantically meaningful than the schema property alone, and it defines 'limit' as the maximum number of returned items.

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: searching ピティナ曲事典 pieces by keyword in the title or composer name, and clearly frames that this is the 'center tool' for normalizing orthographic variants. The scope on 楽曲 makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_piece or search_composers.

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 a clear usage scenario: it is the central tool for 表記揺れ correction, and you should pass an ambiguous piece name to get official candidates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the sibling list and the scope statement make those inferable.

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