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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: MusicAtlas performs canonical track resolution and audio-based similarity search, implying fuzzy title/artist matching. It doesn't say how many results come back or how they're ranked.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose leading. The third sentence about canonical resolution is useful but slightly backend-flavored; otherwise no waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at the return shape (a ranked track list, count, scoring). It describes the input side and the matching mechanism but leaves results opaque, which is a gap for a search-type tool.

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% and both parameters are self-documented ('title of the reference track', 'artist name'). The description adds no format, disambiguation, or matching guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Find songs or tracks that sound similar to ... a specific released recording.' The track-versus-artist distinction implicitly separates it from find_similar_artists, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear triggering condition ('Use when a user asks for songs like a particular track or wants similarity-based track recommendations'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming find_similar_artists as the alternative for artist-level queries.

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