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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond them: the operation consumes credits (a real cost), runs asynchronously, and requires polling plus a follow-up get_project call for the download URL.

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 short lines, each earning its place: cost/mutation, async behavior, and the follow-up workflow. The credit-spend constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers cost, async polling, and where to get the download URL. It stops short of stating prerequisites (obtaining a quote) or any auth/permission requirements for a credit-spending operation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that quote_id comes from a prior quote and that the idempotency_key should be reused on retries ('Same key on retries'), which is genuine added meaning, but it never explains what a quote_id is or where it is obtained.

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 ('SPENDS quoted export credits to prepare the finished song'), and the mention of 'quoted' credits implicitly separates it from the sibling quote_export, which only prices the operation. An agent can distinguish this from quote_export and prepare_upload without opening any schema.

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 clear post-invocation workflow ('Poll job, then get_project for a private download URL') and names the sibling tools to use next. It does not explicitly say when NOT to call it or state the prerequisite of first calling quote_export, but the 'quoted export credits' phrasing strongly implies it.

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