Search tracks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds valuable non-obvious traits: results carry metadata only, synced lyrics availability is indicated before fetching, and LRCLIB cannot full-text search lyrics. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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 several sentences long but each one earns its place: purpose, parameter usage, result interpretation, and a key limitation. It is front-loaded with the core function and remains information-dense without being bloated.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers the tool's role in the broader workflow, parameter choice strategies, result-field usage for disambiguation, and a significant search limitation, making it complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

Because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description elevates it by explaining when to use 'query' versus separate structured fields and how 'album_name' can narrow a search. This guidance is not fully evident from the schema alone, adding practical parameter-selection semantics.

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 identifies the tool as searching LRCLIB for tracks by title, artist, or album, and explicitly connects it to retrieving the ID needed for get_lyrics. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this discovery-oriented tool from its siblings by framing its output as a prerequisite for lyric lookup.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance by explaining the choice between free-text 'query' and structured search fields, and advises how to disambiguate releases using result metadata. It does not explicitly contrast with get_track, but naming get_lyrics as the follow-up step and stating the metadata-only limitation provides solid directional context.

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