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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of identifying a song, but omits important details such as permissions (e.g., microphone access), what happens if no song is playing, or whether the tool is destructive. The 'risk:low' tag is present but adds minimal behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the risk indicator and states the core function. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., song metadata) or how it handles failures. For an audio identification tool, this information is crucial for the agent to use it effectively.

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%, as the single parameter 'duration_ms' has a clear description ('How long to listen before identifying, in milliseconds'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, placing this at the baseline of 3.

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 'Identify', resource 'song', and method 'Shazam', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, as none are related to music identification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no implicit differentiation is given.

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