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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by stating it 'consumes Wubble requests or credits,' which informs the agent about resource consumption—a behavioral trait not covered by 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (synchronous creation with wait), an output schema exists, and parameters are well-documented, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on timeout or failure, or clarify that the tool blocks until completion.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond stating resource consumption, which is generic. Baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Create Wubble song and wait,' specifying the verb (create), resource (Wubble song), and blocking behavior (wait). It differentiates from siblings like 'wubble_generate_song' which likely only initiates creation, and 'wubble_wait_for_request' which is a separate polling tool.

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 for synchronous song creation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wubble_generate_song' or 'wubble_wait_for_request'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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