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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that: results are ordered newest first and paginated, plus a note about MCP Apps hosts rendering a playable list. It doesn't cover rate limits or total-count behavior, so it is a modest add rather than rich context.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the UI note last. Every sentence contributes distinct 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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to orient the agent, and it does: what is listed, ordering, and pagination. The only minor gap is not clarifying what happens with out-of-range pages, which is low stakes for a read-only list.

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%, and both page and limit are documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description only signals that pagination exists without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List the songs you have made" gives a specific verb and resource with a clear ownership scope, which separates it from detail-oriented siblings like get_song_details and from creation tools like generate_song. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 ownership scope ("you have made") implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_song_details, get_song_parts, or other retrieval siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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