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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add. It does: it discloses the actual match basis, warns that featured results keep their order and are not necessarily the best fit, and sets a guardrail that the agent must not claim acceptance or send music automatically. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the matching basis and followed by the edge case, ordering caveat, and guardrail. There is mild redundancy in the tail ("never claim acceptance or send music automatically"), but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 need not be explained, and 100% schema coverage covers the inputs. The description supplies the matching logic, the empty-genre behavior, the featured-ordering caveat, and the no-auto-send guardrail — enough for an agent to call it correctly. The only gap is the unstated relationship to the sibling browse 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including defaults and ranges. The description adds only indirect meaning (which inputs drive matching, and that omitting genre yields general directory results) without clarifying how genreSlugs, accountTypes, and account preferences combine. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ("Find") and resource ("submission opportunities") and goes further by naming the matching basis: track genre, stored tags, and account genre preferences. That basis implicitly separates it from the directory-style sibling droptrack_browse_submission_opportunities, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool matches opportunities against a track, and "no genre inputs means general directory results" clarifies one edge condition. However, it never says when to prefer this over droptrack_browse_submission_opportunities or other discovery tools, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an analyzed/tagged track) are needed.

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