music_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the required permission scope (automation:Music) and pinning a version, which helps an agent anticipate authorization failures. It does not need to describe returns since an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope exclusion immediately after. The bracketed version/permission tag is compact but is metadata that only partially earns its place for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description's job is narrow and it largely succeeds: purpose, scope, and required permission are all stated. The only material omission is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which leaves a small gap for a two-parameter 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 coverage is only 50%: 'query' is documented as 'Track name' while 'limit' has an empty description in both schema and description text. The description's 'by track name' merely restates the schema's query description and says nothing about limit's range or default, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 ('Search') and resource ('local Music library') and then narrows scope with 'by track name; does not search streaming catalog.' That exclusion makes the boundary unambiguous, and no sibling (music_status, music_play_track, music_control) competes as a search tool, so an agent can select this without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'does not search streaming catalog' functions as an implicit when-not condition, which is useful routing information. However, it names no alternative tool or explicit when-to-use context, so usage must be inferred rather than read.

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