search_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that tracks with ids are returned, but says nothing about pagination despite the limit parameter, result ordering, or whether library mutations are involved.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness for a three-parameter tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it delivers very little. An agent cannot tell how to constrain or interpret results beyond the bare purpose.

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%, so the description must explain query, kind, and limit, but it mentions none of them. The kind enum values (all/songs/artists/albums) are self-describing in the schema, but the meaning of limit and the expected query format are left undocumented.

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 and resource ('Search the user's Music library') and even sketches the downstream use of results ('ids you can play or add to playlists'). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_and_play, so an agent must infer which search tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied by the mention that results can be played or added to playlists, which hints at a discovery-then-act flow. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_and_play or play_track.

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