Search TONE3000 cabinet IRs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the tool returns direct tone-page links rather than full tone data. It does not detail pagination or matching semantics, but this is acceptable for a read-only search tool with an output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose, the search dimensions, and the return type. Every part earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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, optional-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, the main filters, and what is returned. It does not explicitly mention that all parameters are optional or how pageSize behaves, but the schema provides those details and they are not critical for a basic correct invocation.

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 needs to compensate. It gives practical meaning to speakerType, cabinetSize, and character by relating them to speaker, cabinet size, and tonal character. However, it does not explain pageSize or provide details about acceptable values or filtering behavior, so the compensation is only partial.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('TONE3000 cabinet/IR tone packs'), and the search facets (speaker, cabinet size, tonal character). It clearly distinguishes this from the broader sibling search_tone3000 by focusing on cabinet/IR packs and by noting it returns direct tone-page links.

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 implies when to use it: when searching for TONE3000 cabinet/IR tone packs by speaker, cabinet size, or character. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or why it should be chosen over search_tone3000 or search_amplitube_gear, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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