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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the output categories (notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales) but no additional behavioral constraints or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the core action and outputs efficiently, and every word serves a purpose.

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 is simple (one parameter, read-only), and the description covers purpose and output categories. However, it omits input format and output structure, and there is no output schema to compensate. The missing chord-notation detail is a clear gap, making this minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema defines only a 'chord' string with no description or format. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely says 'a chord' without specifying accepted notation (e.g., 'Cmaj7', 'C major', note list). This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('a chord') and explicitly enumerates the outputs: spelled notes, frequencies, MIDI, and recommended scales. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord, generate_voicing, and reharmonize, which have different outputs/purposes.

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—use when you need chord resolution to notes/frequencies/scales—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implicit.

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