music_search_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds 'stable IDs' as useful behavioral context, but does not disclose other behavior such as pagination mechanics, default sorting, or field selection implications, which are relevant for a search tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. It is concise and readable, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

With 7 parameters, a nested TrackFilters object, and no mention of pagination, sorting defaults, or when to use this over music_get_tracks, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios. The rich schema is not complemented by the description.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters. The phrase 'metadata filters' hints at the filters object, but there is no detail about filter fields, sort enums, cursor usage, or limit behavior, leaving the schema as the sole source of parameter meaning.

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 verbs 'search' and 'browse' with the resource 'local library tracks', and mentions 'metadata filters and stable IDs', which clearly indicates the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling music_get_tracks, but the metadata filter phrase provides a distinguishing feature.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like music_get_tracks. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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