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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description doesn't need to restate it. The description does add genuine context beyond annotations: standard tuning only, root notes visually marked, and output organized string by string. It stops short of anything further, so 3 is the right level with annotations doing the safety work.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output shape before the scale catalog. The long scale list is bulky but earns its place because it substitutes for a missing enum; without it the tool would be guess-prone.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it tells the agent to expect per-string note positions with roots marked. Combined with complete param docs and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact return structure (data format, whether notes or fret numbers are returned) is left unspecified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for the `scale` parameter, which has no enum in the schema: it enumerates the accepted scale names (major, natural/harmonic/melodic minor, the seven modes, the two pentatonics, blues and major blues). It says nothing extra about from_fret/to_fret, which the schema already documents with defaults and bounds.

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: it returns the notes of a named scale plus their fretboard positions, string by string, with root notes marked. It also pins the tuning (standard), which cleanly separates it from chord-oriented siblings like get_chord_shapes and identify_chord.

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?

The domain is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the tool for scale/chart requests rather than chord or song lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as get_chord_shapes, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is implied by the subject matter rather than guided.

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