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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose safety traits or any other behavioral nuances (e.g., ordering, defaults). It does state what the response includes (names and durations), providing minimal behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no wasted words. The usage hint is valuable and concise.

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?

For a simple list tool with two pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return value (names and durations), and a usage tip. It lacks explicit mention of pagination defaults or ordering, but these are secondary to the tool's function.

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% for both parameters (page and limit), and the description adds no extra meaning about these parameters—it only mentions the output fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully specifies the parameters.

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 states 'List available background music tracks with names and durations', which is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('background music tracks'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_game_videos and list_meme_hooks by specifying the resource type.

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 provides usage context by advising 'Use the exact musicName when creating shorts', indicating when this tool's output is relevant. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are for different resource types.

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