Search library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope (music library) and return types, plus the important integration with play_music. However, it does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only), result limits, pagination, or ordering, which would be beneficial for a search tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and return value are front-loaded, and the note about play_music integration adds valuable context without waste.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function. However, it omits resultformat distinctsion (e.g., how artists vs albums are structured) and any behavior around empty results or limit constraints, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that the query returns matching items and the ids are for play_music, but it does not explicitly explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior or its relationship between query and limit. Baseline is 3 since descriptions provides some semantics beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Search' with a specific resource ('the music library') and lists what it returns: 'matching artists, albums and tracks'. Importantly, it mentions the ids are used by play_music, distinguishing it from that sibling tool. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 this tool is for finding items before playing them, noting ids are 'used by play_music', giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like queue_edit, leaving some inference.

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