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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful default-page-size behavior (50 per page) and the analysis prerequisite, but does not disclose ordering defaults beyond what the schema's sort does, nor rate limits or total-count behavior.

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 tight sentences front-load what a song record contains and the analysis readiness rule, then cover paging. No filler, though the paging mention largely duplicates the 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?

Covers the key domain rule (analysis must be ready before videos) and paging defaults. With no output schema, the description does not enumerate the returned list envelope or total count, and six optional filters are left entirely to the schema, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (q, sort, limit, offset, status, artist_id). The description only repeats limit/offset and q at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource: lists songs with cover, duration, and analysis status. Distinguishes from get_song by being a collection lister, though it does not explicitly name siblings like list_artists or get_song to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides operational guidance (use q to search, limit/offset to page) and a workflow cue that analysis must be 'ready' before videos. But it does not say when to prefer this over get_song or when to filter by status vs. artist_id.

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