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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing gating rules: WAV links and the ZIP exist only on Pro or on a song split with a credit, and links appear only after the split finishes. That is genuinely useful context not present in the annotations, though return-status values and polling cadence remain unspecified.

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, appropriately sized, and front-loaded with the primary purpose (status) before the payoff links. The nesting of qualifiers inside parentheses is dense and slightly hard to parse, but no clause is filler.

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 list the payload (status, stem MP3s, preview links, WAV links, ZIP, practice-room link) along with tier gating. It falls short only on what status values to expect and whether repeated polling is intended.

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 split_id parameter already documents its pattern and its source (split_songs or list_my_songs). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: the status of one split plus, once complete, each stem's MP3/preview links, WAV links, ZIP bundle and a practice-room link. The scope is concrete, but the description never distinguishes this from the sibling get_split_result, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 'once done' implies a polling pattern (call for status, call again for links), so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_split_result, split_audio, or split_songs, and no note that the id must come from a prior split call.

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