search_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are non-playing and ordered 'best guess first,' but it omits permissions, rate limits, pagination, and other operational details.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the subsequent instruction to call play_result follows naturally.

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 one-parameter search tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers return fields and the next step, compensating somewhat for the missing output schema. However, it leaves the query parameter semantics and behavioral safety details unspecified.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'query' parameter, and the description does not add any meaning about what the query should contain or how to format it. The phrase 'search results' only weakly implies a search term.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube Music search results') and names returned fields, clearly distinguishing itself from playback tools by stating 'without playing.' It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools such as library_find, but the purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

It gives clear workflow guidance: 'Pick one and call play_result,' which tells the agent what to do after using this tool. It does not state when not to use it or compare against alternative search tools, but the context of use is clear.

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