search_entities_fuzzy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search behavior (exact first, then fuzzy fallback) and lists supported entity types, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with mutation-like search operations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and usage guidelines in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage well, but lacks details on parameters like 'limit' and behavioral aspects like error handling. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but not fully.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'artist', 'release', 'recording', 'label', and 'work' as supported entity types, which clarifies the 'entity_type' parameter, and implies 'query' is for search terms. However, it doesn't explain 'limit' or provide full semantics for all parameters, resulting in partial compensation.

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 performs 'typo-tolerant fuzzy search' with a specific fallback mechanism (exact search first, then fuzzy matching). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_entities' by emphasizing its tolerance for misspellings, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when to use this tool: 'Use when the query may contain misspellings (e.g., 'Bjork' -> 'Björk').' It also lists the supported entity types, providing clear context for its application without needing to specify exclusions or alternatives, as the misspelling focus inherently guides usage.

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