free_music_search

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only lists parameters and a generic return statement. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or whether the search is read-only.

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 short but includes a parameter listing and return statement. It is not optimally structured; listing parameters in the description is redundant given the input schema. However, it is not overly verbose.

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 fails to explain what kind of music is searched, what sources are used, or how results are structured. With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, but the description adds little meaning beyond parameter names. It repeats labels like 'query' and 'safe_search' with defaults, and contradicts the schema: language default is 'auto' in schema but '默认中文' in description. This confuses rather than clarifies.

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 '音乐搜索' (music search), clearly indicating it searches for music. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like free_image_search or free_video_search, though no elaboration on the specific source or scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like free_general_search or free_social_media_search. The description provides no context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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