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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it uses public_uid, which is a parameter detail rather than an explanation of behavior such as permissions, sensitivity, or return format. The presence of sensitive parameters in the schema is not acknowledged, leaving the agent unaware of potential admin restrictions or side effects.

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 immediately communicates the operation and its scope. No filler or redundant content; it earns its place efficiently.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters including sensitive-access options. It does not mention the response_profile modes, sensitive_access_purpose, or include_sensitive_details, nor does it clarify the behavior around admin authorization. The output schema covers return values, but the context for using these optional parameters is missing, reducing the tool's usability.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including enum and descriptions. The description adds slight semantic value by clarifying that 'titulares' encompasses 'intérpretes/músicos/produtores,' which aids in understanding the intended domain but does not add new parameter-level detail. Baseline 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 the tool lists 'titulares' (interpreters, musicians, producers) linked to a fonograma, using a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('titulares vinculados a um fonograma'). It also distinguishes from siblings like music360_list_fonograma and music360_list_obra_titulares by specifying the relation to a fonograma and the use of 'public_uid'.

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 through the name and description—it lists titulares of a fonograma—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like music360_list_obra_titulares, or any exclusions. The mention of 'usando somente public_uid' gives a partial hint about the required identifier but lacks broader selection criteria.

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