music_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results are paginated ('compact paginated results') which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies non-destructive). It partially covers behavior but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler words. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity, the presence of a rich input schema with full descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result style (paginated, compact). It doesn't explicitly address when to use it vs. siblings or edge-case behavior, but for a search tool with this schema, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all 5 parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning (e.g., 'compact' relates to detail_level, 'paginated' relates to page/page_size) but the schema already documents the parameters well, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'search' and the resource domain (songs, artists, albums, playlists) with a scoping detail 'compact paginated results'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_songs or get_album by being a general search, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate or exclude specific use cases.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recommendations or get_songs. The description doesn't state any prerequisites, exclusions, or when this search is preferred over specific entity retrieval tools.

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