Search AmpliTube 5 MAX gear

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavior is lower. The description adds valuable transparency by stating that mapping confidence is included and that uncertain product identities are not presented as fact, and it clarifies that the source is a curated, closed layer (consistent with openWorldHint=false). It does not disclose pagination or result-count behavior, but that is secondary for a read-only search.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action, resource, and filter dimensions; the second adds a meaningful caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with an output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the core search dimensions and the confidence behavior. It is less complete on tool-selection context: it never tells the agent when to choose this tool over the Tone3000-focused siblings, and it omits the limit parameter. Overall, adequate but with clear routing gaps.

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 compensate. It maps the main query dimensions (gearType, ampFamily, gainClass, and likely keywords via 'style'), but it does not mention limit or explicitly connect 'style' to the keywords parameter. The parameter names and enums are self-explanatory, which raises the baseline usefulness, but the description still leaves some parameter semantics to inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies a bounded resource ('bundled, curated AmpliTube 5 MAX knowledge layer'), plus the main filter dimensions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search tools like search_tone3000, so it falls just short of full peer differentiation.

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?

There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., search_tone3000 or search_tone3000_cabs) or when not to use it. The filter list implies usage scenarios, but the agent is left to infer the boundary between the AmpliTube knowledge layer and the Tone3000 catalogs.

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