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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the returned field set, that tracks come back with the album, paging behavior, and a 1-credit cost. The cost note and pagination hint are genuinely additive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, followed by pagination and cost. No filler; each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of listing returned fields and discloses paging and cost, which is enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the unexplained cache_max_age parameter, a minor omission for a read tool.

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 covers id and cursor (67%), and the description reinforces cursor's role ('page the tracks') but adds little syntax beyond the schema's own 'pagination.cursor from previous response'. cache_max_age is undocumented in both schema and description, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource (a Deezer album) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (title, artist, label, UPC, release date, fans, tracks), which lets an agent distinguish it from deezer_artist, deezer_track, or deezer_search. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differ from, so not a 5.

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 only usage guidance is 'Pass `cursor` to page the tracks of a long album,' which implies repeated calls for large albums. There is no statement of when to prefer this over deezer_artistAlbums or deezer_search, leaving selection to inference.

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