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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags: the URL is public, requires no OffStereo account, is freely forwardable, is narration only, and depends on show completion status. This helps the agent set expectations and avoid promising songs.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core output, use cases, sharing properties, content scope, preferred alternative, and readiness precondition. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (a single MP3 URL), how it behaves (public, no account, narration only), and its constraints (only finished shows). Combined with the annotations and complete parameter schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the input schema already documents both slug and showId. The description does not add much parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to, since the schema fully covers parameter meaning and provenance. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a finished OffStereo story as ONE downloadable MP3 — the narrated story, without the records.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from related content by noting the songs are at webUrl and by contrasting with reading a summary aloud in a synthetic voice.

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 says when to use this tool: 'on any surface where a player card cannot render,' with concrete examples like WhatsApp, Telegram, email, phone, or speaker. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative ('Prefer this over reading a summary aloud in your own synthetic voice') and a precondition: 'Only finished shows have audio — poll get_show until status is ready.'

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