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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idepotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds clarity beyond these by explicitly stating the tool returns a listening page rather than an audio stream and does not start playback, which is valuable behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the essential information with no fluff. The core identification and scoping come first, followed by the critical caveats about playback and audio stream behavior.

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?

The tool has one well-documented parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema. The description fully covers what an agent needs to know to decide whether to call it and what to expect, especially the non-playback caveat.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The tool description reinforces that the UUID must be real, but adds little beyond the schema's own 'Never invent an ID' guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bizzy station') with a precise identifier ('real catalog UUID'),making its purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from siblings by clarifying it returns a listening page, not an audio stream.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you have a real catalog UUID and need the station's listening page. It implicitly distinguishes from find_stations, which would be used when searching without a UUID, and get_biz_info, which targets Bizzy info rather than a specific station.

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