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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is easy to read, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the complexity of chord resolution (music theory), the description lacks key context: no output schema, no parameter format guidance, and no examples. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge of chord notation.

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 one required parameter 'chord' of type string, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the expected format (e.g., 'C major', 'Cmaj7', or a chord symbol syntax). This omission leaves agents uncertain how to specify the chord, reducing usability.

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 'resolve' and the resource 'chord', and lists specific outputs (spelled notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord (likely analysis without such outputs) and generate_voicing/reharmonize (which produce different results).

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 using this tool to get detailed chord information, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_chord, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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