search_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup by describing name-matching scope, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or return format for a search that can obviously return many items.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the scope fallback second. No filler, though the category clause could have been tightened into an explicit default note.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is only minimally sufficient. It omits max_results behavior and result format, which an agent would need to invoke and interpret it reliably.

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` (name containment) and partially explains `category` through the default-scope sentence, but leaves 7 of 11 enum values unaddressed and never mentions `max_results` or its default of 25.

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 ('Find') and resource ('loadable items') with concrete examples (devices, presets, kits, samples), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'browse', which likely overlaps heavily with search-driven browser navigation.

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?

'Without a category it searches instruments, drums, effects and sounds' implies default scope but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing versus siblings like 'browse' or 'load_device'. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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