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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: opportunity review links only open a review and 'never send music', and the caveat that a missing result 'is not proof of a running job'. These are non-obvious traits not derivable from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and there is no padding, but 'Explain analysis_experience audio evidence and preview limitations' is cryptically phrased and reads as an instruction rather than a behavior statement, reducing clarity for the size it consumes.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values. It covers the key usage mode (statusOnly polling), the no-side-effect guarantee, and the missing-job caveat, leaving little an agent needs unknown for a read-only inspection 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond it, clarifying that statusOnly drives progress polling; includeOpportunities/accountTypes semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Read the saved report for the exact track/version') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the create/analyze siblings via 'without creating another analysis'. An agent can tell it apart from droptrack_analyze_audio and droptrack_create_audio_analysis_upload without opening their schemas.

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 clear conditional guidance: 'For progress checks use statusOnly=true and honor the bounded polling guidance'. It also routes away from re-running analysis. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. get_track_analytics, get_ai_job) for related needs, so it's strong context but not fully exhaustive.

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