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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that generation is asynchronous by returning a request ID to be used with fetch-audio, which is useful. However, it omits other traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or handling of webhooks, leaving gaps.

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 three concise sentences with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it works with, and how to retrieve results.

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 music generation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: creation from prompts and retrieval via request ID. It could better highlight the asynchronous nature and webhook option, but the schema already documents those parameters.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description references prompt, tags, and lyrics but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create music from text prompts') and clarifies that it generates original music based on description, tags, and lyrics. It distinguishes itself from retrieval tools by mentioning fetch-audio, but does not explicitly differentiate from other generation siblings like sound-generation or song-extender.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions fetch-audio for retrieving results, but does not compare to alternatives or state prerequisites. Only implied usage: generate music when you have a text prompt.

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