stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'search and record rights' without detailing side effects (e.g., that acquire downloads and creates a record, or that the tool is idempotent via the 'key' parameter). The schema descriptions fill some gaps, but the tool description itself lacks essential behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words. It is concise and efficient, but it sacrifices precision and completeness for brevity. It could be slightly improved without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the search-then-acquire workflow, the role of the idempotency key, or the meaning of the 'refresh' and 'seconds_min' parameters. The description is inadequate for correctly invoking the tool in all scenarios.

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% (all 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema – it maps 'search' to 'terms' and 'record rights' to 'acquire', but does not clarify other parameters like 'refresh', 'seconds_min', or 'kind'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and limited added value from the description.

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 states 'Search licensed third-party music and hits, and record the rights for one that fits.' It identifies a verb+resource but is partially inaccurate: the schema allows searching footage, stills, and typefaces in addition to music and hits. The purpose is vaguely clear but not fully aligned with the tool's capabilities.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., inspect, hear, preview). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The description implies a search-and-acquire workflow but offers no explicit selection criteria.

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