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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Download') but doesn't describe what happens during the download process, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, how failures are handled, or what the expected outcome is. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. There is zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 download operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, download progress, file location), doesn't mention potential errors or constraints, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of a file download operation, more completeness is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by specifying that parameters should come 'from search results,' which provides context about parameter sourcing but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Download a file') and the resource ('from a Soulseek peer'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_status' and 'search' by focusing on file retrieval rather than status checking or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative download methods or tools.

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 provides some implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Use the username and filename from search results,' which suggests this tool should be used after search operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter sourcing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe what information is returned, format of the status response, whether this operation has side effects, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and front-loads the key information immediately.

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 status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe what information is returned (connection state, latency, error details, etc.), making it difficult for an agent to understand what to expect from this operation. The description should compensate for the lack of structured output information.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this tool configuration. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check') and target resource ('current connection status to the Soulseek network'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'download' and 'search' by focusing on network connectivity rather than file operations or content discovery.

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 usage context (verifying network connectivity) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. While the purpose suggests it's for diagnostic/status checking, there's no guidance about when this check is needed versus attempting operations directly.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns a list of available files matching the query', which gives some output context, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, network dependencies, error conditions, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the tool's function and output. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search operation that likely involves network behavior and result formatting, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the returned list contains (e.g., file details, user information), how results are sorted, error handling, or any limitations. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context.

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 the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain query syntax, result ordering, or limit implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for songs/files on the Soulseek network' with the specific action 'search' and resource 'songs/files'. It distinguishes from sibling 'download' (which retrieves files) and 'get_status' (which checks system state), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download' or 'get_status'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction beyond the basic function.

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