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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: this is asynchronous and returns a job_id that must be polled via get_job. It says nothing about cost/credits, expected generation latency, output audio format or length, or whether the request is billed even on failure — gaps that matter given the presence of get_balance and list_pricing siblings.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the first states what is produced, the second states the async contract and the next tool to call. The most actionable information (job_id + get_job) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

The async lifecycle is covered, but for a paid generative tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks cost expectations, rough generation duration, and what the finished asset looks like (duration, format). Adequate to invoke, thin for planning around it.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — 'mood' is undocumented in both places, and nothing explains how 'prompt' for a music bed should differ from a prompt for generate_image. The required owns_rights licensing gate is entirely schema-borne, so the description contributes nothing here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Generate an instrumental music bed') plus the intended use case ('launch video or stream'), which clearly separates it from generate_image, generate_banner, and generate_teaser_video. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling as the alternative, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage context (launch video or stream) and the critical follow-up workflow: 'Returns a job_id immediately; poll get_job,' which routes the agent to the successor tool. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. voiceover or full-song requests), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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