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

Annotations only carry the generic profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a 10-minute audio cap, synchronous execution with ~5–20 s latency and results in the submit response, no source separation so dense-mix chords are only a draft, and that cancellation does not apply because the job is already finished.

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-loaded with the capability and output list, then the directive usage sentence, then input dorks — a sensible order. It is dense and dash-heavy, and the closing cancellation sentence is somewhat expendable, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe returns — and it does, in detail: key string example ('D minor'), tempo_map granularity (per-beat), downbeats in seconds, sections with times, chords on the beat grid, cues with start/end/tempo/key/level. Combined with the input guidance and latency/limits, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds selection semantics the schema does not spell out as clearly: audio_key is 'an upload' while audio_url can be 'a result URL from another job as returned, or any public https URL.' The idempotency_key parameter is not mentioned in the description, though the schema documents it adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb stack and resource — 'Key detection, BPM/tempo detection, song structure and chords... musical analysis of a recording in one call' — then enumerates the exact outputs (key, bpm, tempo_map, meter, downbeats, sections, chords, dynamics, cues). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by name: doseedo_detect_chords is for chord charts from separated stems, this is for one-call analysis of a mix.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'USE THIS to learn the key and tempo of a reference before writing a part — never guess or ask the user for what the audio already says.' Explicit alternative and exclusion: 'for a chord chart from stems use doseedo_detect_chords on the separated stems,' plus 'Cancel: not applicable' to steer the agent away from doseedo_cancel_job. Nothing is left to inference.

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