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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: partial results possible for Spotify sources, queue/timeout behavior, and the recovery path via polling. It does not quantify rate limits or describe the async job lifecycle in detail, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, and the recovery behavior last. Nearly every clause earns its place; the closing note about opportunity review links is the one slightly tangential addition.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the important non-obvious behaviors (partial provider results, timeout/polling recovery). It leaves unaddressed the mutual exclusivity among the 15 source parameters (s3Url vs audioUrl vs uploadKey vs audioBase64 vs providerUrl), which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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% across 15 parameters, so the schema already documents every field including the trackId-as-new-version semantics. The description's 'save a track or new version' merely echoes what trackId's schema text already states, so 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+resource ('Analyze uploaded audio or a supported audio/Spotify/SoundCloud link') and adds the write side effect ('save a track or new version'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like droptrack_get_track_analysis. It never names a sibling, so it stops short of 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?

Gives real conditional guidance: if queued or timed out, poll the saved report rather than re-submitting, and it clarifies that Spotify may yield only metadata/preview and that opportunity review links don't send music. No explicit alternative tool is named (e.g. which tool to poll with, or how it relates to droptrack_create_audio_analysis_upload), leaving the routing partly to inference.

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