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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (status, three style options, current style, numbered lyric lines) since there is no output schema. It does not disclose status value semantics or whether the result changes over time, which matters for a 'processing status' read.

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 tightly packed sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The return-value enumeration is dense but each item earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and a single fully documented parameter, the main missing piece is behavioral: an agent does not learn whether status can be pending and should be re-polled, or what the style options mean for follow-up calls to choose_style/update_style. The return-field list is a good start but leaves the lifecycle unclear.

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% for the single projectId parameter, and the schema even names its provenance ('returned by create_lyric_video'). The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns a lyric video project's ...') and enumerates the payload, making it clearly distinct from create_lyric_video, choose_style, and edit_lyrics. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never says 'retrieve a project' explicitly enough to route an agent unambiguously against get_export.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of polling repeatedly until processing completes, and no reference to alternatives such as get_export or choose_style. The only implied usage comes indirectly from the schema's mention of create_lyric_video, not from the description itself.

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