vibo_search_songs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about return values (songUrl, viboSongId, title, artist) and scoping to event/section. This goes beyond the annotations to provide useful behavioral details.

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 concise (two sentences) with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and quickly covers source options and output usage, making it efficient for agent understanding.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return fields and integration. It covers main aspects but could mention pagination (limit) or error handling. However, given tool complexity and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and clarifying the source parameter's values, which are not fully detailed in the schema.

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 tool searches for songs to add to a section, distinguishes between two sources (Vibo catalog and Spotify), and specifies the returned fields for integration with vibo_add_song_to_section. This fully differentiates it from siblings like vibo_get_section_songs.

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 explicitly explains when to use each source ('searchField' vs 'spotify') and indicates the output is intended for vibo_add_song_to_section. While it doesn't cover when not to use the tool, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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