search_radioteca

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches across multiple fields, returns three types of results with counts, and requires citation and linking. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient.

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 3-4 sentences that convey essential information: source, search scope, result types, and critical usage instructions. It is compact but not overly terse; each sentence serves a purpose. Minor redundancy in listing broadcasters twice could be tightened, but overall it's efficient.

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 has 6 parameters (including enums) and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview: it names the fields searched, result categories with counts, and important behavioral notes (citation, URL). It could be more complete by describing the output fields or return structure, but the current level is adequate for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the year parameter's limitation (only year-level indexing) and suggesting a workaround using keywords and URL path, which goes beyond what the schema provides. This extra guidance justifies a score of 4.

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 searches radio shows, episodes, and people from the specific Catalan radio archive radioteca.cat, listing exact broadcasters and document counts. It uniquely identifies the tool's resource and scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on datasets.

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 usage context (source, languages, searchable fields) and critical instructions like citing the source and including URLs for traceability. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different contexts.

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