itunes_search_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns a formatted list of matching tracks, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the search is case-insensitive, how results are ordered, or any rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context (global scope, formatted output) but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. It's front-loaded with the key differentiator (global catalog).

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameters, and return format. It's complete for a search tool of this complexity. The only minor gap is not specifying result ordering or pagination, but that's not critical for a simple search.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' as the search term (song title, artist, or album) and 'limit' as number of results with default and max. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, but it's minimal—no examples, no format details, no edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the low coverage.

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 global Apple Music / iTunes Store catalog, distinguishing it from the sibling itunes_search which likely searches the user's local library. The verb 'Search' and resource 'global Apple Music / iTunes Store catalog' are specific and unambiguous.

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 notes this searches outside the user library, which implies when to use it (for catalog-wide searches) versus alternatives like itunes_search (presumably for local library). However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or provide exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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