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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot express: a 1–5 minute latency expectation and an explicit UX instruction to warn the user up front. It stops short of failure/timeout or cost behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then latency, then the actionable UX instruction. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing an agent most needs for this long-running generation call – the wait expectation and how to set user expectations. Missing only edge cases like failure handling.

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 single 'prompt' parameter is already documented with what it should contain (genre, mood, instrumentation, tempo). The description's 'from a text prompt' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Generate a music track from a text prompt'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like generate_image, generate_video_clip, and generate_sound_effect. An agent can select this tool from the name and first sentence alone.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies its own usage by describing the output, but gives no routing guidance among the many generate_* siblings.

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