search_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool runs a search, waits for responses, post-filters by a bracketed label tag, and excludes coincidental matches. This gives useful behavioral context the schema cannot provide.

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 sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact about the filtering process. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the main behavior and label parameter well, but leaves the 'formats' parameter unexplained and does not explicitly compare against sibling search tools. Given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the 'label' parameter via example, but it never mentions the 'formats' parameter, its default, or its effect. Param semantics are only half-covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find releases on a specific record label') and clearly distinguishes the tool from plain search by explaining the bracketed-tag filtering behavior. It also implies the distinction from sibling search tools.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when label-specific results are needed and coincidental word matches should be filtered out. It contrasts with 'plain search' but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not to use it.

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