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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that featured_artist Looks are private and serve only that artist's songs, and how artist_id filters them out. Useful domain-specific disclosure beyond the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage guidance. Efficient overall, though the JSON-snippet and artist-filtering clause make it slightly dense.

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?

For an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema and only 63% schema coverage, the description omits pagination (limit/offset), sorting, and search behavior that an agent would need to call it fully. It covers the artist-privacy nuance well but is incomplete on the rest.

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 63% with 8 parameters. The description meaningfully clarifies artist_id semantics and the id-reuse pattern, but says nothing about q, sort, limit, offset, or category. It adds real value for one parameter while leaving the rest 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Browse Official, Community and your own Looks') and defines the domain object ('A Look is a complete, reusable lyric-video design'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_look or show_looks, leaving the agent to infer the listing vs. detail distinction.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: reuse a Look via {"mode":"existing","id":…}, and when choosing for a song, pass artist_id to omit Looks showing another artist. This is actionable when-to-use guidance, though it offers no explicit when-not or direct sibling routing.

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