flat_find_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about authentication/account scoping beyond 'da conta', how many results come back, or how pagination behaves despite a max_pages parameter existing.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding; the matching semantics come first. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that space was left unused rather than trimmed.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented second parameter, the definition is not complete enough: an agent does not know the return shape, result ordering, or the meaning/limits of max_pages.

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. It does a good job on 'query' (substring match on title/composer, case-insensitive) but leaves 'max_pages' (default 8) entirely unexplained, which is exactly the kind of control an agent needs to understand.

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 ('Procura') and resource ('partituras da conta') plus the match fields (título/compositor) and case-insensitivity, which clearly separates it from the sibling flat_list_scores. No explicit sibling naming, so not a 5.

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 a text-search use case but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions when to prefer flat_list_scores or flat_score_overview instead of a text search.

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