search_release

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 discloses the search is read-only, explains the concept of release groups, and clearly describes the return structure. It does not mention rate limits, result ordering, or error behavior, but for a search tool this level of transparency is strong.

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 well-structured: a brief opening that defines the resource, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—the release group definition, the workflow hint, and the parameter/return details. It is neither overly verbose nor under-specified.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value format. It covers the search concept, all parameters, and how to use the results. Given the tool's simplicity and the richness of the sibling context, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section thoroughly explains each parameter: query (free-text title with examples), artist (restrict to this artist, with default), and limit (max results 1-25). This adds substantive meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default definitions.

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: searching MusicBrainz for release groups (albums) matching a query. It uses a specific verb ('search'), identifies the resource ('release groups'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are all get_* operations) by being the sole search tool and by instructing to use the returned mbid with other tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: 'Use the returned mbid with the other tools' establishes a discovery-first workflow, and the release group granularity is explicitly positioned for browsing a discography. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives when an mbid is already known, but the context makes this clear.

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