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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations: the operation is asynchronous, returning immediately with a `pending` task and requiring polling. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which only hint at mutability. It doesn't mention failure modes or other side effects, but the critical async nature is clearly stated.

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 a single sentence of 29 words, front-loaded with the action and then immediately explaining the return behavior. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition.

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 covers the essential workflow—initiate the task, receive a pending response, and poll get_generation for results—which is adequate for a complex tool given the rich schema. It does not mention model selection or prerequisites, but those are already in the schema, and the async pattern is the most critical aspect. Minor gap: it could hint that more detailed model guidance is in list_models, but that is referenced in the schema anyway.

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%, and the description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema (e.g., it never mentions style, title, or model). Since the schema fully documents all 10 parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes nothing extra here.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'an AI music generation task on Lacuna', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools. It also contrasts with get_generation by stating it returns a pending task immediately, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative `get_generation` for retrieving finished tracks and audio URLs, establishing a clear when-to-use this tool (initiate generation) and when-to-use the sibling (poll for results). This provides direct usage guidance beyond the schema.

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