search_radio_stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-style search operation, describes the 'limit' clamping behavior, and lists returned fields. However, it does not disclose details like matching semantics, empty-result behavior, or error conditions.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

The tool has an output schema and only two simple parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, given the large sibling list with overlapping search tools, it lacks the contextual routing needed to confidently select this tool over alternatives like find_stations_by_name.

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 compensate. It does: 'query' is explained as free-text station name with an example, and 'limit' is described as max results clamped to 1-20. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Radio Browser directory'), and object ('stations matching a name'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'find_stations_by_name' or the broader 'advanced_station_search'.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling search tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or indications of which sibling to use instead, which is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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