MusicCheck: copyright screening

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds real signal: results are only populated when status is COMPLETED, and the payload enumerates detection windows, matched title/artist, and a publish-safety verdict. It does not state what is returned in non-COMPLETED states.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by exactly the conditional detail an agent needs. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by describing the detection windows, matched metadata, and verdict. For a simple read-only, single-parameter tool, nothing material is missing.

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% and the single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description is not required to compensate. It adds only the loose hint that a screening is identified by that id, which is baseline value.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one screening's status and result), and the singular scope implicitly separates it from the plural list_screenings sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling or the condition that routes to it, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 usage (retrieve a known screening by id) and notes the meaningful state is COMPLETED, but never says when to use this versus list_screenings, screen_audio, or verify_report, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that it lists 'most recent' and includes 'results and remaining credit balance', but does not explain pagination, ordering, or response format details beyond that.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded, information-dense, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and return content.

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 read-only annotations, simple schema, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is listed and what is returned. A small gap is missing how many defaults (though schema says default 10) or any ordering details, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with description. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'screenings', clarifies scope 'on the account that owns the API key', and mentions returns 'results and remaining credit balance'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_screening (single) and screen_audio (create).

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?

Implies usage for listing recent screenings but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. get_screening or screen_audio. However, the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer it's for listing recent items, not fetching a specific one or creating a new screening.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous semantics (returns immediately with report_id and QUEUED status), the credit cost model (1 credit per sampled window), which account is billed (the one owning the API key), and a workflow precondition. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: what it does, what comes back and how to poll, and what it costs. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

For a two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information (report_id + QUEUED), the polling path, and the cost/precondition context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured data; the description only restates the 'publicly reachable URL' requirement and says nothing about the optional filename parameter or its format-inference role. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submit a publicly reachable audio or video URL for copyright screening') and immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming get_screening as the polling counterpart. An agent can tell this is the submission entry point rather than a read/query tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Run this BEFORE publishing generated content') and explicitly routes the agent to get_screening for polling, which is the key workflow instruction. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement or naming alternatives for other screening cases, so it falls just under the top tier.

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

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

Adds genuinely non-derived context beyond the annotations: no API key is required, and any party can verify a report shown to them. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world nature, so the auth/access disclosure is the value-add here.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The no-key access note and the use case each earn their place.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what it verifies and what it returns ('see what it concluded'). Slightly thin on what a failed verification looks like versus a valid one, but adequate overall.

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% and the single report_id parameter is documented with a concrete example format in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify that a report id refers to a real screening and retrieve its conclusion. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly-named sibling get_screening, which an agent might reasonably pick for the same intent.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context (checking someone else's claim of 'already cleared') and explains the caller's situation, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming when to use get_screening or list_screenings instead, so no explicit alternative routing.

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