search_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns previews (not licensed assets) and includes metadata and estimated price. It implies read-only behavior. Could mention more about real-time or caching, but sufficient for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral constraint. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and preview behavior but lacks details on parameter usage, return structure, and query complexity guidance.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond hinting at 'mood words, instruments, use' for the text parameter. This does not compensate for the gaps in schema descriptions.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('rights catalog for music an agent is allowed to license'). It differentiates from siblings by specifying it returns candidate tracks, not stats or license actions.

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 explicitly states that results are previews only and that a paid license is needed via 'license_track', implying when to use the tool (search) and when not (for licensed assets). However, it lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when to not use the tool.

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