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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope caveat about working outside the OnChain catalog and discloses the internal allocation order, but omits rounding/precision behavior and how defaults interact with the split.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the scope note. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only calculator with no output schema, the description explains the entire computation chain well enough for an agent to predict the result. Minor gaps around units already in schema and rounding are negligible.

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 all three parameters are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description's mention of the publishing-side split loosely maps to publisher_sync_percentage but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 (sync licensing fee) and lays out the two-stage allocation logic, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related sibling calculate_songwriter_publisher_split, which performs one of the sub-steps described here.

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 note that it 'works for any music, not only the OnChain Music catalog' implicitly signals scope, and the sync-fee framing implies when it applies. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance against siblings like calculate_songwriter_publisher_split or calculate_cowriter_split.

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