search_guitar_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions search capabilities but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search the Digital Guitar Archive for records') and adds a useful detail ('Supports full-text search and field-specific filters') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output details, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'full-text search and field-specific filters,' which aligns with parameters like 'q' and others but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema already covers.

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 clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('Digital Guitar Archive for records'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record_details' or 'list_sources' beyond implying it's a search function rather than a detail retrieval or listing tool.

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 mentions 'Supports full-text search and field-specific filters,' which implies usage context but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_record_details' or 'list_sources.' No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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