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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds a genuine behavioral fact that un-scanned sets return public preview only, which affects result interpretation. It does not cover rate limits or auth, keeping it short of 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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the primary purpose and the accepted input forms come first, and the preview caveat follows as a qualifier.

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 usefully characterizes what comes back (identified tracklist vs. public preview). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only link format and error behavior for invalid ids are unaddressed.

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 0% for the single 'set' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does: the accepted forms (an id from list_my_sets or a set link) are spelled out, giving meaning well beyond the bare untyped string. Format/syntax details of a 'set link' remain unspecified.

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 ('Get the tracklist ... for a DJ set') and scopes it to CrateWire-identified tracklists, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_my_sets and scan_link. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent what to supply: an id from list_my_sets or a set link, which routes the agent to the right upstream tool. It also flags the fallback case for sets the account did not scan. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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