search_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only notes that genre is incorporated into the query, which is a minor behavioral detail. There is no mention of read-only nature, return format, pagination, or other behavioral characteristics.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise but the phrase 'el genero se incorpora a la consulta' is slightly redundant, detracting from clarity. Overall, it is efficiently sized.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the filter values, limit semantics, or result structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly. More context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'texto' refers to the query parameter, and mentions genre and artist, but omits limit and filter. This partial mapping adds some value but does not fully explain the filter enum or limit behavior.

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 it searches the catalog by text, genre, and/or artist. The verb 'Busca' and resource 'catálogo' provide specific purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the general search scope.

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 list_liked_songs or get_playlist. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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