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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical operational behavior: missing fields are reported as 'not on file' and never filled from any other source, and the user is pointed to the correct contact for gaps. It also clarifies licensing happens elsewhere, which frames the tool's boundary. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation 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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the resource and content, then adding presentation format and error handling. Each sentence serves a purpose—the missing-field policy and the licensing note are unnecessary. It is not wordy, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation and proper outcome.

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 a very simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what data is returned, how missing data is reported, and what the user should do next. It does not explain return structure in detail, but no output schema is present, and the tool is straightforward. The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by enumerating the fields conceptually.

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?

The schema has full description coverage for the single parameter 'ref' (a track ref from any other tool's results), so the parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics; it only implies the ref identifies a track/cue. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema_description_coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource: clearance data for a cue, specifying writers, publishers, shares, ISRC, and album. It uses the verb 'present' and is distinct from siblings like stye_get_track or stye_search_tracks by focusing on the filing artifact. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'generate,' but the title and content make the purpose 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?

The description states the intended users (broadcasters or PRO filing) and the need (clearance data), and it implies when it should be used versus doing something else—notably licensing. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast when to use this versus stye_get_track or stye_list_versions. The boundary 'not for licensing' is the only exclusion; there is no broader when-to-use guidance.

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