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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive semantics, and the description adds two things they cannot: the required `content:read` scope and a prompt-injection warning that user-authored text arrives under untrusted_fields. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, which keeps it below a 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 short sentences, the core purpose first and the safety note second, with no filler. Every clause carries load — scope requirement and untrusted-content handling both change how an agent behaves.

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 should say enough about the return shape and paging to call the tool correctly, and it omits both. The security and permission notes are genuinely useful, but an agent cannot tell what comes back or how to continue past the first page.

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 lone `cursor` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing about it — no mention of paging forward, opaque tokens, or what an absent cursor means. The only parameter-adjacent content is unrelated to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List my SoundCloud tracks'), scoped to the authenticated user's own content, which separates it from import_soundcloud and get_dj_content. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus adjacent list tools such as list_mixes, get_dj_content, or import_soundcloud. The only usage-adjacent detail is the required permission scope, which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule.

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