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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: synchronous execution with a stated latency window, a 10-minute audio cap, and the fact that results come back in the submit response rather than via polling. It does not mention credit/cost implications (doseedo_quote exists as a sibling) or file size/format constraints, which is the main remaining gap for a paid, open-world submit call.

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 output contract, then inputs, then limits and the sibling alternative — every clause is functional. The output-field enumeration is dense and slightly run-on, but it earns its space given the absence of an output schema.

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 fully documents the return shape, and it covers the input alternatives, duration limit, synchronous timing, and the terminal-state caveat. An agent can call this and interpret the result without consulting anything else.

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%, so both audio parameters and idempotency_key are already documented. The description restates the either/or relationship between audio_key and audio_url and notes the public-URL case, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond 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?

Names a specific operation (beat detection / beat tracking) and enumerates the exact outputs it produces (bpm, beats[], downbeats[], beats_per_bar, beat_map, duration), plus a concrete usage framing: 'the grid to place a part against a recording'. It also differentiates itself from the closest sibling by routing full analysis to doseedo_analyze_song.

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 about inputs (audio_key vs audio_url), the 10-minute audio limit, synchronous ~3–15 s behavior, and the alternative to use when key + sections + chords are also needed. It even resolves a question an agent would otherwise have to guess at: cancellation is not applicable because the job is already finished.

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