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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: a field absent from the response means it is not on file in the catalogue, and gaps are escalated to info@songstoyoureyes.com. That interprets the result rather than restating 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the payload contents come first and the gap-handling note follows. Slightly dense enumeration, but each clause carries information.

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 carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so field by field (writers, society, IPI, publishers, shares, ISRC, album). It also preempts the most likely agent confusion, a missing field, by explaining what absence means and where to escalate.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that ref is the catalogue ID from a search or track result. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource and its full field set: every credited writer with role, society and IPI, every publisher with its share, plus ISRC and album. That is far more concrete than a sibling like stye_get_track would be. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, so it stops short of 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 implicitly frames the use case ('the clearance data a broadcaster or PRO filing needs') and states an out-of-scope condition ('Licensing is arranged with the Songs To Your Eyes team, outside these tools'). However, it never says when to reach for this instead of stye_get_track or stye_list_versions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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