search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by noting that filters are 'applied post-search,' explaining that unknown bitrate files are kept for min_bitrate, and providing a default for max_queue_size (Soularr default: 50). These details go beyond a simple 'search' description.

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 a concise paragraph with a bulleted list of filters. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the filter details are organized clearly using hyphens. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

Although the description and schema cover the parameters and purpose, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return value format, pagination, or what to expect in results. It also omits explanation of 'timeout' and 'max_results' parameters. Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters), these gaps leave some ambiguity.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of most filter parameters: extensions, min_bitrate, min_filesize/max_filesize, free_slots_only, max_queue_size, and min_speed. It does not mention query, timeout, or max_results, but these are relatively self-explanatory from their names and defaults.

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 opens with 'Search the Soulseek network for files,' clearly identifying the action (search) and the resource (files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download, get_config, and connection_health, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context for using this tool to search files, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool references. However, the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious, so usage context is clear.

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