Search tracks

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the batch-lookup mode, paginated results, and the follow next_href contract. It does not discuss rate limits or result item shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose and filter options, the second covers the batch-lookup mode, and the third handles pagination. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 12 parameters, all fully described in the schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the main behavioral contract: search, filters, batch lookup, and pagination. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not specify the shape of each result item, but the tool name and search context make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a helpful high-level grouping of filters and explains the special meaning of urns, but it does not provide per-parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states this is a full-text search for tracks with optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling search tools for playlists and users. It also notes the batch-lookup behavior when urns is provided, which separates it from single-track retrieval tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: searching tracks by text and filters, or doing a batch lookup via urns. It explicitly routes pagination follow-ups to soundcloud_next_page, but it does not explicitly contrast with soundcloud_search_playlists or soundcloud_search_users, though the track-specific wording makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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