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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds valuable return-shape context, which matters because there is no output schema. However, the annotations oddly declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false for what reads as a pure fetch, and the description never explains what side effects or state changes a 'get' could cause — a meaningful gap given that inconsistency.

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 compact sentences with the returned-field inventory front-loaded and the argument note second. The long enumeration of fields is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the call yields in the absence of an output schema.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, listing returned fields plus the title-as-identifier option covers the essentials. It still leaves unexplained why the operation is flagged non-read-only/non-idempotent, and says nothing about result size or behavior for ambiguous titles.

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% and the single parameter already carries an example ('AIN-CAT 031_002' or 'Shine On Today'), so the baseline is 3. The description restates that a title is acceptable as the identifier and adds the 'call it by name' tip, which is mildly useful but largely duplicates what the schema example already demonstrates.

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 gives a specific verb (retrieves one cue in full) and enumerates the returned facets — album, catalog number, composer IPI, publisher, tempo, key, versions/stems — which is far more informative than the bare name. It implies distinction from bulk siblings like search_music or cue_sheet by emphasizing 'one cue in full', but it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

'call it by name when the user names a cue' is genuine invocation guidance, but it only covers argument form, not when to choose this tool over search_music, find_soundtrack, or cue_sheet. No exclusions or prerequisite context are given, so usage is only implied.

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