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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real caveats: descriptors are editorial/curated by CWI Sync and BPM values are estimates rather than audio analysis. That provenance warning is valuable for interpreting results, though nothing is said about auth, rate limits, or result size.

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?

A compact two-sentence block that front-loads the verb and resource before the qualifiers. Dense but every clause (catalog size, descriptor types, provenance caveat) 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description explains the catalog's contents but never describes the return shape, result count, or pagination behavior. The domain framing is good, yet the response contract is left implicit.

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 documents the format, examples, and 500-character truncation. The description's example queries ('fight scene') are consistent with the schema but add no syntax or format detail beyond it, so 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+resource ('Search the CWI sync catalog') and scopes it to a concrete domain (23 tracks with editorial sonic descriptors) for music-supervision queries. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search_catalog or semantic_search, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Example queries ('fight scene', 'neon city') imply the intended music-supervision use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_catalog or semantic_search, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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