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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds input-scope boundaries (text chord symbols only, no audio/lyrics/notation files), which is genuine value. It does not disclose output form, enharmonic behavior, or what happens at the ±24 semitone limit.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the positive capability front-loaded and the exclusion immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the expected return value (a transposed chord string) and the meaning of preferFlats and the semitone range. Without that, an agent knows the intent but not the contract.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely doesn't. 'Slash bass notes' hints at accepted chord syntax, but neither the semitones range/direction nor the preferFlats default and its effect on sharp/flat spelling is explained.

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 and resource ('transpose chord symbols') and adds scope detail ('including slash bass notes') that tells an agent exactly what input shape is handled. It is clearly distinct from siblings like spell_piano_chord or tab_to_piano_notes, though it does not name them.

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?

Offers an explicit when-not ('does not process audio, lyrics, or notation files'), which usefully steers the agent away from misuse. However, it gives no positive usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over spell_piano_chord) and names no alternative tool.

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