Search tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that both fields are required, free-text search is not available, and lists the fields returned per track. It does not cover edge behavior such as exact-match semantics, pagination, or auth requirements, but for a search tool the description is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then the key constraints, and then the return information. Every clause adds useful information.

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 description covers the primary purpose, required parameters, constraints, and return fields, which is adequate for a search tool even without an output schema. It could further clarify match behavior or when to prefer sibling tools like lookup_isrc or resolve_tracks, but overall the agent has enough context to 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 the three parameters. The description adds context by stating both artist and title are required and clarifies the no-free-text limitation, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool searches the SonoVault catalog by artist and title, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_artists and search_releases by the required parameters and the note that there is no free-text search, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when both artist and title are known, and explicitly notes that both are required and free-text search is unsupported. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the boundary is reasonably clear.

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