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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail not in annotations: opening the panel starts no transcription, which is important context for an agent deciding whether it triggers work. It does not describe what happens after the user acts in the panel (handoff/return), leaving some behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the selection condition and a key negative behavior. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given one optional parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and that it does not start transcription. Minor gap: it does not describe what the agent should expect after the panel opens (e.g., user takes over), but this is not essential to invocation.

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 100% and the single optional 'engine' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the engine parameter, so baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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 ('Open') and resource ('the panel where the user adds or records music themselves'), making the action concrete. The title 'New score' is vague, but the description clarifies the panel's purpose and implicitly distinguishes it from transcription tools by noting it is for when you cannot pass a file or link.

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?

Explicitly says 'use it when you cannot pass their file or link,' which sets a clear condition for choosing this tool over attachment/link transcription siblings. It also clarifies 'Opening it starts no transcription,' preventing confusion with transcribe_* tools, though no explicit 'when not to use' beyond that is provided.

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