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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the outputs are real published examples with actual lyrics, they should not be treated as guarantees, and 'Disclosures must stay visible' signals a compliance constraint. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. Most sentences earn their place, though 'Disclosures must stay visible' is cryptic without domain context and slightly interrupts the flow.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and one optional enum parameter, the description covers what is returned (real published outputs and lyrics), the key caveat, and the filter. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor ambiguity around the disclosure requirement.

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?

There is one optional enum parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'Optional use filter,' which clarifies optionality and filtering purpose but does not explain the enum values beyond what the schema itself lists. This is minimal but adequate compensation for a single self-describing enum.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show real published Raploom outputs and their actual lyrics.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_lyrics, which creates lyrics rather than showing published examples. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 a usage caution ('Use these to explain possibilities, not to promise an identical result') and notes the optional filter, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as draft_lyrics or list_stages. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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