WIA Music catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only public details are returned and that purchasing happens off-tool ('purchase only on the website'), which is mild extra context, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior for a bad slug.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a localized parenthetical; no padding or restated intent. The Korean translation duplicates the English meaning, which is defensible for locale support but is redundant for an agent parsing the text.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (key, BPM, formats, links), so the agent knows what to expect from the call. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single param, the definition is nearly complete; only failure/empty-result behavior is unstated.

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 schema even supplies a format pattern and an example slug ('afterimage'), so the single parameter is fully documented structurally. The description's 'by slug' restates rather than extends that, 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?

Specific verb+resource (get one catalog song by slug) with an enumerated preview of the payload (key, BPM, formats, links), which clearly separates it from search_songs and list_catalog_facets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_song_lineage, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'by slug' implies the tool is for fetching a single already-known song rather than discovering one, which is usable but left to inference. No explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-search_songs guidance is given, and no prerequisites are stated beyond the read-only note.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope context beyond that, stating the tree is public and contains no buyer or personal data, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens for a song with no derived versions.

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 content clause is front-loaded and tight, with the privacy note immediately after. The Korean sentence is a redundant translation that roughly doubles the length without adding an agent-relevant fact, a minor conciseness cost.

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 usefully enumerates what is returned (original, derived versions, verification links, release records) and confirms the privacy scope. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to sufficient; only edge-case behavior is unstated.

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?

There is a single slug parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, resolution, or lookup semantics for the slug, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the version tree of a song, listing the original, derived versions, their receipt-verification links, and public release records. This is clearly richer and distinct from the plain get_song resource, though it never explicitly names the siblings it differs from.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent can infer that this is the tool to call when version or release lineage is needed, but the choice against get_song or search_songs is left implicit.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'current' facet values and a total count, but doesn't describe output format or freshness semantics. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the enumerated facets, followed by the usage hint. The Korean translation in parentheses is redundant for most agents and adds length without new information, slightly hurting conciseness.

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 zero-param, read-only, idempotent facet listing, the description covers what it returns well enough. No output schema exists, so it correctly names the returned fields (genres, keys, vocal types, languages, count), leaving little ambiguity.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies this is a no-argument catalog enumeration, matching the empty schema with no discrepancy.

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 (List) and enumerates the exact resources (genres, musical keys, vocal types, languages, total song count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_songs and get_song, which return songs rather than facet metadata.

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?

Explicitly says it is 'Useful before calling search_songs,' giving a clear usage context and naming the alternative workflow. It doesn't state when NOT to use it, but the pre-search framing is strong guidance.

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: this is the public catalog, each song is a 1-of-1 bundle, and purchasing is deliberately out of scope. It does not address result volume/pagination, but the limit parameter in the schema covers 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and filtering capability, then constraints, then the sibling alternative — a good ordering. Slightly wasteful in repeating the entire sentence in Korean, which conveys no extra routing information to an agent, though it does signal the catalog's locale.

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 9-parameter, filter-only search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: scope, filterability, read-only status, and the out-of-scope action. Result shape isn't described, but no output schema exists to lean on, so a small gap remains.

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 67%, and the description enumerates the filter dimensions — text, genre, musical key, BPM range, score formats — mapping to five of the parameters. The remaining undocumented ones (has_mr, has_lyrics, limit) have self-explanatory names and limit is described in the schema. It adds synthesis value without contradicting the schema.

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 — searching the public WIA Music catalog — and scopes it to original K-pop/K-trot/K-ballad songs sold as 1-of-1 bundles. An agent immediately knows this is a read-only catalog lookup, not a licensing or download tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_song or list_catalog_facets, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 context: read-only, purchasing happens on the website, and copyright screening of arbitrary audio belongs to the Music Check MCP instead. That is an explicit when/when-not with a named alternative. It stops short of routing among the local siblings (get_song, get_song_lineage, list_catalog_facets), which the schema itself hints at for genre values.

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