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

Annotations only provide readOnly=false, destructive=false, which are basic and do not cover side effects or prerequisites. The description adds a routing rule (audio file → use create_compel) but does not disclose what happens after creation, auth requirements, or other behavioral details. With sparse annotations, the description carries moderate burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It states the core function and the key alternative without fluff, 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 3 enums, and no output schema. The description explains the primary use case and the critical alternative, and the schema covers parameter details. It lacks return value information, but the creation action and clear parameter descriptions make it sufficiently complete for the domain context.

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 coverage is 100%: all six parameters have detailed descriptions. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 creates a compel from a selected Deezer preview track, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_compel by noting the alternative for audio files, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage guidance: use this tool when a Deezer track is selected, and if the user provides an audio file instead, upload and use create_compel. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus the alternative, fulfilling the criterion for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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