search_tracks

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. It discloses the deprecation status, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about return format, pagination, permissions, or result limits for a 19-parameter search endpoint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the deprecation caveat; no filler. It is efficient, though it omits pagination and return details entirely.

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 complex 19-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. The deprecation warning is the only extra context; pagination, ordering behavior, and result shape are all missing.

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 100%, so all 19 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Search tracks') and scopes it to a station, so the agent knows this is a filtered track listing. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_tracks_by_ids or get_incomplete_tracks, so it stops short of 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 deprecation note implies the tool should be avoided or replaced, but it never says what to use instead or under what conditions to pick this over sibling track endpoints. Usage is only vaguely implied by 'using various filters'.

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