apple_music_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description's added value is limited to 'Read-only' (redundant) and the scoping fact that search is confined to one explicit playlist rather than the whole library. No mention of pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scoping statement and the sibling pointer are both delivered compactly. The 'Read-only:' prefix is slightly redundant against the annotations but costs nothing.

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 output schema, five undocumented parameters, and a non-obvious enum, the description does too little. It never says what a result contains (tracks? matching names?) or how limit/offset pagination works, leaving the agent to guess how to call and interpret the tool.

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 carries the full burden for five parameters. It only implicitly covers playlistId ('an explicit Music playlist') and query ('search'); the enum parameter `only` (all/artists/albums/composers/names) and the limit/offset pagination parameters are completely unexplained.

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 within an explicit Music playlist. It partially distinguishes from siblings by naming list_playlists as the way to obtain the playlist, though it never clarifies what is searched (tracks, artists, albums) versus apple_music_list_tracks or apple_music_get_track.

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 gives one concrete piece of routing advice: use list_playlists to identify the library playlist, which establishes the prerequisite for playlistId. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over apple_music_list_tracks or apple_music_get_track, and no exclusions or boundary conditions.

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