search_track

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions confidence scores, but omits behavioral traits like search algorithm (exact/partial), whether combining title and artist is AND/OR, read-only nature, rate limits, or error conditions. Minimal disclosure beyond basic functionality.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose and output. Front-loaded with verb. Not overly long, but could include a tiny bit more detail without losing conciseness. Earns high marks for lack of fluff.

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 search tool's complexity and multiple siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how search parameters are combined, whether matching is fuzzy or exact, or what confidence scores represent. Output schema exists but description should still provide high-level context. Significant gaps remain.

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 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., does not specify how title/artist interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear statement of action ('Search for a single track') and output ('matches with confidence scores'). Implicitly differentiates from batch_search_tracks and search_track_fuzzy by mentioning 'single track', but doesn't explicitly contrast. Loses 1 point for lack of explicit 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_track_fuzzy, batch_search_tracks). No context on prerequisites or when not to use. A strong description would clarify exact vs fuzzy matching or batch searching.

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