Search artists and songs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: case-insensitive substring matching, that play counts are all-time, and the null-id edge case that signals an export-only artist. It does not discuss result ordering or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and matching semantics, then routing guidance, then the edge case. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to pick and call the tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the shape of results (matched artists/songs with ids and all-time play counts) and the key null-id case. A bit more on ordering or how the two result lists are returned would make it fully self-contained, but it is complete enough to call 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 query, artist and limit are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that matching is a case-insensitive substring on names but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (find) and resource (artists and songs in stored listening history) plus the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring) and returned data (all-time play counts). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming artist_history and track_history as downstream consumers of the ids it produces.

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?

Explicitly says to 'use this first' to turn a name into the id that artist_history and track_history take, and gives a clear when-not/alternative branch: an artist with id null is known only from the imported export, so pass its name to artist_history instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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