Search bands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious constraint that at least one filter must be supplied, but says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what the 200-result limit implies.

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 sentences, no filler: the filter inventory comes first and the required-filter constraint is placed last where it reads as a precondition. Every clause 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?

For a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the filter surface and the critical at-least-one-filter rule. Return shape and pagination semantics are left unstated, which is a minor gap given search conventions.

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 only 44% (name, genre, label, year_from, year_to have no schema descriptions), so the description carries extra burden. It partially compensates by labeling genre as free text, tying year_from/year_to to a 'formation year range', and describing themes/location/label, but it adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format details.

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 (search) and resource (bands) and enumerates the filter dimensions (name, genre, country, formation years, themes, location, label), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_albums, search_songs and browse_bands. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those alternatives, so it falls just below a 5.

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 one hard usage rule — 'At least one filter is required' — which is genuinely useful. However it never says when to prefer this over browse_bands or get_band, nor whether an empty result is expected for unknown names, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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