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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only reveals the output shape (two stems). It says nothing about whether this is an async job (siblings include check_task_status), credit consumption (get_my_credits), or that source_key must first come from get_upload_url.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — the stem detail is front-loaded and useful, yet nothing else earns or fills the space.

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 three-parameter audio processing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, one sentence cannot be complete. Missing workflow context (upload, async polling, credit cost) is material to calling it correctly.

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% across three parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The opaque 'kwargs' parameter and the meaning of 'source_key' and 'format' are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('Vocals and Instrumental'), plus the output granularity ('2 Stems'). That implicit stem count distinguishes it from siblings like split_4stems and split_6stems, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over split_4stems, split_6stems, or extract_single_instrument, nor any preconditions. The agent must infer selection purely from the stem count in the title-like phrase.

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