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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is light. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the tool also returns a deal-type classification and that its scope extends beyond the OnChain catalog. It stops short of explaining rounding, currency handling, or edge cases.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. The trailing scope sentence earns its place by preempting a catalog-applicability question, though it reads as slightly appended rather than integrated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return (a split plus a deal-type label). For a two-parameter, read-only calculation tool this is close to complete, though it does not explain how the three deal types affect the split numerically.

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 both gross_royalties and publisher_percentage (including the default of 50 for co-publishing) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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 (split) and resource (gross songwriter royalties), plus a secondary output (deal type: self-published, co-publishing, full publishing). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculators calculate_cowriter_split and calculate_sync_fee_split, which handle different royalty parties.

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 line 'Works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog' gives useful scope guidance about applicability, but it never states when to choose this tool over calculate_cowriter_split or calculate_producer_points, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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