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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the output components but discloses no behavioral traits such as default modes, error handling, or side effects. As a read-only retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every clause contributes either to purpose or usage guidance.

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 a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. Minor gap: it does not explain how 'mode' affects the returned prompt, but the schema already addresses this, so the description is sufficient.

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% for both parameters, so the schema provides full param descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning the return content, which is already covered by the schema's 'mode' and 'slug' descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('curated Claude prompt, intro hint, pairing hint, arc role, and experience recipes for a song'). It directly contrasts with raw metadata interpretation, distinguishing it from likely sibling tools like get_song or get_experience.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage directive ('Use this to get first-class directives...') and a clear alternative scenario ('rather than interpreting raw metadata'). This is sufficient to guide the agent on when to choose this tool over others.

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