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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a lot: per-minute credit cost, that long jobs are asynchronous and return a job_id to poll with get_job, and that result links expire in one hour. It omits permission/auth requirements and any note on output format or failure modes, keeping it short of 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 tight sentences with zero filler: capability first, then cost, then async/expiry mechanics. Everything an agent needs is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers capability, cost, async polling and result expiry — enough to invoke and follow up correctly. The undocumented 'format' enum and absence of auth/permission notes are the only remaining gaps.

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 75% and already documents tempo and semitones (including ranges and the '+12 is one octave' note), so the description's pitch/tempo wording is largely redundant. The 'format' enum has no description in either place, so the description does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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: shift pitch in semitones and/or change tempo independently. The word 'independently' communicates the key capability (decoupled pitch/tempo) that separates it from a simple speed changer. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of a 5 in this crowded audio-tool family.

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 concrete use cases ('remixes, practice tracks and key matching') that tell the agent when this tool is appropriate. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., tempo_calculator for pure tempo math), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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