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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns (three cues), how those cues are adapted to the given duration, and that each result includes composer, difficulty, publisher, and a preview. Good behavior coverage for a read-only, opinionated lookup tool.

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 moderately paced and front-loads the primary purpose before the duration-matching behavioral detail. The example of a 30-second cut versus a full track is valuable, and the description ends with a concrete when-to-use instruction.

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 description is complete for a simple retrieval tool: it gives the core input, the output package, the matching behavior, and the intended use case. It does not mention fallback behavior, availability of the catalogue, or error conditions, but it is not clear it needs to for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already documents most properties with descriptions. The description adds nuance by clarifying that duration_sec represents an exact duration to match against, rather than a general range condition. It does not significantly clarify product or cuts_per_min beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action: "Find music for a video" and specifies the output: three duration-matched cue from the AINSOF catalogue. It also distinguishes itself from more generic sibling searches by emphasizing the exact-duration matching behavior.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when someone asks for music or a soundtrack for a video and its exact duration is available.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the exact-duration condition is clear enough to route an agent correctly in most intent.

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