search_music

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states that it returns a JSON string of search results. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond page parameters, or whether the operation is read-only. This lack of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or prerequisites.

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 exceptionally well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean Args block and a Returns line. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff. The front-loaded purpose and clear sectioning make it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary inputs and the return type. It explains the search types and pagination parameters. However, it lacks any additional context such as whether results are limited by default or how to handle errors, so it falls just short of complete.

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 no descriptions for any parameters (coverage 0%), so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter in Chinese: keyword as search keyword, search_type with enumerated valid values, page starting from 1, and page_size defaulting to 20. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema titles and enums, though it could mention the default for page explicitly and clarify the return structure slightly more.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '搜索 QQ 音乐' (Search QQ Music). It specifies a concrete verb (search) and resource (QQ Music), and the Args list further clarifies it supports multiple search types (song, album, playlist, mv, lyric, user). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_song_detail or get_lyric, the distinct search operation and resource are unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the entry point for finding content before fetching details, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusion scenarios. Usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling getter functions, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.

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