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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the grant requirement for query mode, the authenticated-agent prerequisite, and the versioned metadata/uncertainty return. It doesn't explain rate limits or failure modes, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the default no-query behavior, then the query-mode authorization, then return variants and sibling routing. Three sentences are tight but the 'versioned musical metadata/uncertainty' phrasing is slightly dense; still every sentence earns its place.

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 3-param optional tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers both operating modes, auth prerequisites, and returns. Missing only explicit failure behaviors for the grant-required path.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, receipt_id, and idempotency_key semantics including the 'omit' instructions. The description reinforces the query mode split but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific dual behavior: reads a public high-level music classification when query is omitted, and performs source-record retrieval when query is supplied. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming request_authorized_listening_run and inspect_listening_receipt as not-this.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (omit query for public summary, supply query for retrieval) and names the alternatives for authorization and receipt verification. The 'not a listening receipt' exclusion is direct routing guidance.

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