search_releases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities and a default limit, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, usage guidelines, and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 5 parameters with full semantic coverage in the description, and clear usage guidelines, the description is largely complete. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., permissions, rate limits) in the absence of annotations prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters: title, artist, label, barcode, and limit (including its default value of 5). It adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, specifying what each parameter filters by.

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 for releases with specific filters, providing a specific verb (search) and resource (releases). It distinguishes from sibling search_entities by mentioning filtering by artist, label, or barcode, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like search_artists or lookup_by_barcode.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Prefer search_entities for simple title searches; use this when filtering by artist, label, or barcode.' This clearly defines the context and names a specific alternative tool.

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