search_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the tool returns a list of tracks, but doesn't cover pagination, performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Each parameter explanation is concise and purposeful. While slightly longer due to 9 parameters, every sentence adds value and the structure enhances readability.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations) but presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The parameter explanations are thorough, and the output schema will handle return value documentation. However, more behavioral context would improve completeness for this search operation.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains that 'query' searches across multiple fields, clarifies that 'key' expects musical key notation like '5A' or '12B', specifies that 'rating_min' uses a 0-5 scale, and indicates 'limit' controls maximum results. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tracks in the rekordbox database, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('tracks'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_track_details' or 'get_tracks_by_bpm_range' by being a general search tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tracks_by_bpm_range' or 'search_tracks_by_filename'. The description only lists parameters without context on optimal usage scenarios or trade-offs compared to specialized sibling tools.

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