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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value: the tool returns a status object first and only yields the full analysis once processing completes, which tells the agent to expect a not-ready state. It stops short of noting rate limits or error behavior for unknown song_ids.

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 compact sentences, with the status-then-analysis lifecycle front-loaded and the view semantics following. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause adds information.

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 and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more. It adequately covers the async lifecycle and the view modes, but omits what the sections parameter filters and what fields the summary view returns, leaving real gaps for an agent composing a call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the view parameter well (default 'summary', 'full' adds word timings and beat arrays) and song_id is self-evident, but the sections array and its seven enum values are never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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: retrieves the status and then the full analysis of a song, and distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_song by framing itself as the polling/retrieval counterpart. It doesn't say what the analysis actually contains beyond the 'full' extras, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'started with analyze_song' implies this is the follow-up call to poll an existing job, which is useful context. However, it never states when to use it vs. get_example_analysis, nor what to do if the song is still processing or invalid, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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