groove_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so: it declares 'side effects: none', calls the operation an 'offline deterministic read', and specifies that invalid cursors and missing criteria fail before runtime I/O. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure. It stops short of describing return contents or how the cursor advances across calls.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines covering purpose, side effects, a call example, and failure modes. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 an 11-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description addresses roughly a quarter of the surface an agent must understand. The safety profile is covered, but the filter vocabulary and the pagination/return contract are not.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It incidentally demonstrates only query and limit in the example; bpm, meter, facets, seed_bundle_id, feature_constraints, projection_operator, required_projection_ids and schema_version are left entirely unexplained in both schema and text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search the configured immutable groove seed bundle.' That is a real statement of purpose rather than a restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings like search_browser or groove_evidence, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example shows a query+limit call and the edge-case note ('missing criteria fail') hints that a criterion is required. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over groove_evidence, groove_generate, or search_browser, and no when-not guidance.

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