Search

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it warns that the call 'potentially consumes paid API credits' and requires confirm=true, and it explains why the read-like POST is not a publish action. This resolves the otherwise confusing readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false combination and gives the agent the guardrail it needs before invoking.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then the cost/confirm constraint. Minor duplication of the type values already present in the schema keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

For a 4-param tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (public result sections), the credit/confirm requirement, and the non-publishing side-effect. It omits the meaning of the account parameter, but that is documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the confirm=true precondition and its cost rationale, which the schema only states as 'Must be true for the specific approved credit-consuming research call.' The type list is slightly narrower than the schema's enum set but the schema covers the full list.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Searches Apple Music') and enumerates the result sections returned, which cleanly separates it from entity-lookup siblings like apple_music_artist/album/track. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery tool and the others are detail lookups.

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 gives parameter-level guidance ('Use type=song, album, artist, playlist, or all') but no explicit statement of when this tool is preferable to apple_music_artist, apple_music_album, apple_music_track, or spotify_search. Usage is implied by the word 'Searches' rather than stated.

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