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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: bounded paging with a nextCursor token, the meaning of each song's projectId, and the cost/side-effect profile (free, no audio upload or generation).

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 what the tool returns and immediately followed by the pagination and projectId semantics. No filler or restatement of the name, though it is slightly denser than needed for a simple list call.

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-only paginated list with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, paging, identifier meaning, and side-effect/cost profile. Only explicit routing guidance to alternative song/project listing tools is absent.

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% and all three parameters (limit, cursor, artistId) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about projectId describes output rather than adding syntax or format meaning to any input parameter.

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 (list songs) scoped to one artist, and adds the distinguishing scope detail that it uses the app's canonical grouping and includes available project versions. No sibling tool lists songs, and this definition makes its territory unambiguous.

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?

It provides a negative boundary ("this does not upload or generate audio") and notes the call is free, which helps rule out generation tools. However, it never says when to reach for this vs. studio_song_status, studio_projects_list, or studio_releases_list, nor states the prerequisite that artistId must first be obtained from studio_artists_list.

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