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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral value by enumerating the returned fields (scale, parent, notes, key notes, songs, confusions, page) and by disclosing that spelling variants and diacritics are normalized.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the operation and its input tolerance, the second front-loads the return contents. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the input-flexibility note covers the main ambiguity of a transliterated name lookup. The only gap is undefined behavior on a failed lookup (error vs. empty result), which matters for a name-addressed lookup.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the `name` parameter: it accepts any transliteration ("raga"/"ragam"/"raag") and diacritic-free input, which goes beyond the schema's example values. Nothing new is said about `tradition`, though the enum is self-explanatory.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("look up a raaga by name") plus the exact payload returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like identify_raaga or list_raagas, leaving that distinction to inference from the names.

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 only implied: the "by name" framing and the spelling-tolerance note suggest this is the tool for a known raaga name, while list_raagas and identify_raaga are never mentioned. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no note on what happens if the name is not found.

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