Search tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (ISRC, genre, duration, artist credits, release info) and catalog size (90M+), but does not cover authentication, rate limits, error cases, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded immediately, and each sentence adds essential 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It covers the core functionality, constraints, and output details. Could mention pagination (limit parameter) more explicitly, but overall complete for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that both parameters are required and adds context about no free-text search, but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema 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 specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('SonoVault catalog (90M+ tracks)'), and key constraints ('by artist and title', 'Both are required', 'no free-text search'). It uniquely identifies this tool's purpose among siblings like browse_tracks and search_artists.

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 explicitly states that both artist and title are required and that free-text search is not available, guiding usage. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over siblings like get_track or search_releases, though the constraints imply the appropriate scenario.

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