Search TONE3000

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that it operates on 'authenticated' tone packs and returns links rather than downloads, which is behavior beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but the annotation bar is lower.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful output clarification without drifting.

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 complex 10-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description captures the core behavior, key search criteria, and the nature of the return values. It does not detail pagination or how multiple parameters combine, but the output schema and self-explanatory parameter names fill many 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps several parameters to concepts ('amp family' to ampMake, 'tags' to tags, 'capture type' to architecture/category, 'rank' to sort), but leaves page, pageSize, gain, and the relationship between query and artistOrStyleKeywords unaddressed. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 and resource ('Search authenticated TONE3000 tone packs') and clearly states the return type ('direct tone-page links, not model downloads'). This differentiates it from siblings like search_tone3000_cabs, which targets cabs rather than tone packs.

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 clearly frames the tool's context: finding tone packs by amp family, style, artist, song, tags, and capture type. It implies this is the go-to search for tone packs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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