music_search_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what is returned (all tracks? ranked matches?), whether results are paginated or truncated, or what platform/account dependency exists. Most critically, it never explains how 'search' works for a tool with zero parameters — an agent cannot tell whether this dumps the entire library or relies on ambient context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and resource arrive immediately. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a zero-parameter signature leave the description as the only source of truth, and it supplies nothing beyond the one-line purpose. An agent cannot predict result shape, size, or how matching is determined before calling.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit. The only residual concern is that the absence of a query parameter is itself unexplained, but that is a schema-level fact rather than a description failure.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Searches the tracks of the user's Music library,' which is distinguishable from music_list_playlists and music_playback by naming tracks rather than playlists or playback control. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus music_list_playlists, music_now_playing, or music_add_to_playlist. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no stated conditions under which this tool is the right choice.

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