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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: local and free processing, no score changes, a 300-second audio cap, uncertain candidates rather than probabilities, and a 24-hour report window. 'Changes no score' does not contradict readOnlyHint=false because starting analysis can still update job state.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose before operational details. Every clause carries useful information, though 'up to 300 seconds of audio, about three minutes' is mildly redundant.

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 does a lot: it explains start/read flow, duration limits, uncertainty of candidates, and report retention. It still does not describe the exact return payload or any auth/prerequisite context, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains start=true starts analysis and start=false reads it, and it implies score_id identifies the score whose original recording is analyzed. It does not detail score_id format or whether start=false requires a prior start call.

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 and resource: guessing which instruments play in a score's original recording, with scope details like locally/free and no score changes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as confirm_pro_instruments or get_pro_instrument_review, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Explains the start=true/false operating flow and the 24-hour report window, but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is operational rather than selection-oriented.

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