YourMelody

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: results are pre-existing English-language recordings (i.e., no generation and no non-English options) and the empty-result path requires asking the user before relaxing filters.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the two facts an agent most needs (results are real recordings; ask before widening filters). No filler or restated field names.

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 simple optional-filter lookup tool that has an output schema and enum-constrained parameters, the description covers purpose, the nature of results, and the empty-result policy. The main remaining gap is how multiple filters interact, which an agent may want before invoking.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the four parameters. It names three of them as filtering axes, which is useful, but adds no detail on combining semantics (AND vs OR), on defaults, or on the limit parameter, and the enums themselves are self-documenting.

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 ('Find published sample tracks') plus the three filter axes (occasion, recipient, genre), which lets an agent distinguish a search/lookup tool from a brief-preparation sibling. It does not name prepare_song_brief or otherwise explain the boundary between them, so it stops 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?

There is real fallback guidance — 'Ask before broadening filters when no samples match' — which tells the agent how to behave on an empty result set. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus prepare_song_brief, and no statement about whether filters are optional or combinable, so usage is only partially disambiguated.

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?

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it discloses a privacy boundary on inputs (no names, contact details, or private stories) and reveals that the output includes a suggested musical style, which the agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the privacy constraint, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 takes six parameters, three of which are undescribed in the schema, and the description neither explains the traits list, the language behavior, nor how the brief is structured beyond the style suggestion. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input-side gaps keep this at a minimum-viable level.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate, and it only partially does. It reinforces the sensitivity constraint for the memory and message fields, but says nothing about traits, language, or how recipient and occasion drive the brief, leaving the array and language parameters entirely to 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?

The description names a specific action and resource: organizing a personalized song gift brief and suggesting a musical style. That is clearly more than a restatement of the title, and an agent can tell what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling find_song_samples, though the two operations are intuitively distinct.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description tells the agent to use general details and defer names, contacts and private stories to the website, which is guidance about how to fill the tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no reference to the sibling tool as an alternative.

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