search_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Search' implies a non-mutating lookup, and the description adds the behavior that filters are optional. However, it does not disclose pagination, result shape, rate limits, or auth considerations, which are relevant for a search endpoint.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, making it an efficient description even though it sacrifices depth.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description provides only a high-level summary. It lacks guidance on when to use search versus sibling retrieval tools, how filters interact, pagination behavior, and what the response contains.

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 for the 12 parameters, but it only provides the general phrase 'optional catalog filters' and the entity types. Individual parameters like label, barcode, format, and catalogNumber are left to name inference rather than explained.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), a clear resource scope ('Discogs releases, masters, artists, or labels'), and notes optional catalog filters. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_release, get_master, and search_ebay_vinyl.

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 it is the general search entry point for Discogs entities, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of direct get_* tools or search_ebay_vinyl. The usage context is inferable but not stated as guidance.

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