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

The readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description's remaining burden is light. It does add real value by disclosing that beats are detected at upload time and scoped per music clip, implying results are absent for non-music clips, but it says nothing about pagination, units, or return structure.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the payload description comes first and the practical tip second. The parenthetical '(detected at upload)' is compact and informative rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does identify the returned fields (BPM, beat times) and their per-clip granularity. Format details like units or data shape remain unstated, but for a simple read-only lookup the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 coverage is only 50% – clipId has no description – and the phrase 'per music clip' only loosely hints that clipId narrows results to one clip. The description does not say whether clipId is optional, what happens when it is omitted, or how projectId defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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 the concrete resource (beats of the music on the timeline) and the payload (BPM and beat times, per music clip), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling add_beat_markers, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

'Cut on these so edits land on the beat' gives one implied use case, and '(detected at upload)' hints at when data exists. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of add_beat_markers as the write-side alternative.

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