radio_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose — no mention of how matching works, result ordering, rate limits, or pagination.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits useful detail rather than being overwrought.

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?

No output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only place to explain search semantics and the limit parameter, and it does neither. For a two-parameter search tool it leaves too much unspecified.

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 must carry both parameters, but it explains neither. 'name' is only implicitly the search string, and 'limit' is entirely undocumented (max results? page size?), leaving the agent to guess.

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 for radio stations') and names the source (Radio Browser), so the agent can tell what it does. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like radio_by_country, radio_by_tag, or radio_top_clicked, which are all station-listing operations.

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 versus the other radio_* tools (by country, by tag, top clicked, top voted). An agent has to infer that this is a free-text name search, and nothing states when it should be preferred.

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