search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirement, no rate limits, no pagination behavior despite offset/limit parameters, no result ordering. The output schema covers return values, which is the only relief.

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 short fragments with no padding, and the core purpose plus the type hint are front-loaded. The brevity is efficient rather than wasteful, though it edges toward under-specification.

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?

With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should do far more work than it does. An agent gets no guidance on paging, result size, or query semantics, so it cannot call this tool confidently beyond the simplest case.

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 and largely does not. It only glosses the 'type' enum (already documented in the schema as cloudcast/user/tag) and says nothing about query syntax, limit defaults, or how offset paginates.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Mixcloud'), and the type enumeration clarifies what can be searched. It does not distinguish itself from siblings that also surface content, such as browse or genre_shows, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named among the many discovery siblings (browse, genre_shows, get_show, get_user). The type list implies what is searchable but not when search beats a direct get_* call.

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