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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description usefully adds the validation rule that percentages must total 100, but with no output schema it never describes what the split returns, which matters for a calculation tool.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: the action, the validation rule, and the scope boundary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

For a two-parameter computation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, input constraint, and scope. The one gap is the absence of an output schema plus no description of the returned split format, which an agent might want to know.

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%: both parameters, including the nested writer name/percentage fields, are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the sum-to-100 rule already present in the writers schema description, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 ('Split') and resource ('gross songwriter royalties among co-writers by their percentage shares'), which is clear and concrete. It implicitly differs from siblings like calculate_songwriter_publisher_split and calculate_sync_fee_split through the resource named, but it never explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling.

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?

The description gives a scope statement ('Works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog') and an input constraint, which implies when the tool applies, but it never says when to choose this over calculate_songwriter_publisher_split or calculate_producer_points. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and resource.

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