Search users / artists

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail by noting the batch lookup mode when urns is supplied. It does not disclose pagination behavior or response shape, but for a non-destructive search tool the description offers reasonable added context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main use case is front-loaded, and the batch-lookup special mode is added in a single additional clause. Every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only search tool with no required parameters and full parameter schema coverage, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: search content is specified, the optional urns mode is explained, and limit semantics are in the schema. It could have mentioned pagination or how results relate to soundcloud_next_page, but the schema's 'Items per page' already hints at paging.

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 all three parameters (q, urns, limit) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The description reinforces that 'urns' triggers batch lookup, which slightly augments the schema, but it does not need to carry the parameter-documentation burden. 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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('SoundCloud users'), and the scope ('by name'), while also distinguishing it from sibling search tools like soundcloud_search_tracks and soundcloud_search_playlists by targeting the user/artist entity. The parenthetical 'artists, labels, listeners' further clarifies what kinds of users are in scope.

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 primary use case is clear: search users by name. The sentence 'Also does batch lookup when urns is given' explicitly describes when to use the batch lookup mode, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like soundcloud_get_user for known URNs, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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