Search Bandcamp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that text fields are user-generated and should be treated as untrusted data, and it explains the slug semantics (a slug is a URL slug, not a display name, and null slugs cannot be looked up). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure that goes beyond the structured hints.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds routing and safety details. It is longer than the minimum, but every sentence earns its place: the slug routing, null-slug caveat, is_label distinction, and untrusted-data warning are all non-obvious and useful. Slightly more structured formatting (e.g. separating the untrusted-data warning) could improve scannability, but the content is tight.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the return value looks like (a ranked JSON list of matches with {type, name, artist, slug}) and how to use it. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, which could matter for a search tool, but the routing and safety information is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret results 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and type). The description adds some context by explaining that the query is free-text and that type restricts result types, but it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Bandcamp'), enumerates the result types (albums, artists, tracks, labels), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining how results route to bandcamp_get_album, bandcamp_get_track, and bandcamp_get_artist. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on without opening the schema.

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 explicit routing guidance: a result's slug is what you pass to the corresponding getter tool, and a null slug cannot be looked up. It also explains how to tell 'artist' from 'label' via the is_label flag. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use and how-to-use guidance that helps an agent select and invoke the tool correctly.

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