Search music feeds

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add semantic context. It does this by explaining the Podcasting 2.0 medium separation and that results are feeds for albums/tracks rather than episodes, which helps set expectations beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence gives necessary domain context and the third gives actionable guidance without 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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, result type (album/track feeds), and usage context. It could still add a brief note about response shape or pagination, but overall the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents q, max, clean, and only_with_value. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, but it also does not add meaningful semantic insight about any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource boundary: 'Search feeds whose medium is music rather than talk.' It also clarifies that these are albums and tracks, not episodes, which distinguishes it from the general podcast search tools in the sibling list.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for music discovery and warns that 'a normal podcast search will not surface them well.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use signal and an implicit contrast with search_podcasts, the likely alternative.

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