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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing catalogue coverage ('a little under half of the catalogue's cues have at least one of these') and that each version carries its own listen_url. It doesn't discuss errors or pagination, keeping it below 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, enumerating version types before qualifying with the coverage statistic and use case. Slightly long-winded in the alternate-mix clause, but every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden; it names the version categories and notes each has a listen_url, which is enough for an agent to know what comes back. A hint about response ordering or fallback when no versions exist would make it 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 100% and already explains that any ref — main mix or a version — returns the whole family, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing every deliverable form of a cue (full mix, timed cutdowns, alternate mixes, stems). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like stye_get_track (single track fetch) or stye_fit_to_duration (duration fitting).

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Relevant when a cue is nearly right but needs to be shorter, quieter under a voice, or stripped back.' It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., stye_fit_to_duration) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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