Search MusicBrainz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool is 'Read-only' and that data comes from MusicBrainz. It also explains the query format and matching behavior, going beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by examples and next-step guidance. Every sentence is informative and concise with no wasted words.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description hints at the output: 'ranked matches with their MBIDs.' All 4 parameters are well-documented. The tool is straightforward (search), so the description is mostly complete. Minor omission: no mention of pagination behavior beyond the offset/limit parameters.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by showing example queries and explaining that plain text matches the entity name. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Search a MusicBrainz entity type with a Lucene query and get back ranked matches with their MBIDs.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (MusicBrainz entity types), and what is returned (ranked matches with MBIDs). This distinguishes it from siblings like musicbrainz_browse and musicbrainz_lookup.

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 explains when to use this tool: for searching with Lucene queries. It provides examples of plain text and fielded queries. It also tells the next step: 'Feed a returned MBID into musicbrainz_lookup for full detail.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like musicbrainz_browse.

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