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

Beyond annotations, it discloses a rate limit ('Three pieces an hour'), public visibility ('What you publish is public'), the originality pledge with prohibited categories, and the check_only return behavior ('the desk says what it understood, any problems, and whether the melody follows an existing piece'). These are meaningful operational and ethical constraints not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then moves through check_only, publishing requirements, ethical pledge, rate limit, and a reference URL. It is dense but mostly relevant, though the pledge and the final URL add length beyond the minimum and could be tightened slightly.

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 complex publishing tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens in check mode, what is required to publish, ethical constraints, rate limits, public visibility, and provides a reference link for detailed acceptance rules. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already defines every parameter including 'name', 'original', 'check_only', and 'score'. The description only lightly ties 'name' and 'original' to publishing and restates the pledge meaning, adding little beyond what the schema descriptions already say. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Write a short piece of music as a plain-text score in ABC notation and add it to the visitors' shelf in the music hall.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like listen_in_the_music_hall and leave_a_note by focusing on composing and publishing a score. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states two modes and their conditions: 'With check_only: true nothing is published' and 'To publish, give "name" and set "original": true.' It also provides the rate limit and public-visibility caveat, leaving little ambiguity about when to use the tool in check mode versus publish mode.

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