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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral content: the 25-work listing cap with works.total holding the full count, and the meaning of works.ordered_by=coded being a sample rather than best-known songs. It stops short of auth, rate-limit, or error behavior, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The usage condition and ID format are front-loaded, so an agent gets the trigger immediately. The remaining text is dense and run-on, with nested clauses and backticked tokens packed into two long sentences, but almost every clause carries information the agent needs given the absent output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly, including the join-rule vocabulary (main, same_ipi, ipi, model with score, corroborated, verdict) and the listing-cap semantics. Combined with full parameter coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 there is a single parameter whose format (SLP-XXXX-XXXX-X) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the same format without adding syntax, validation, or edge-case meaning, so the 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?

The description states a clear purpose: use it when you hold a Songlinks person ID and want that writer's details, then enumerates what comes back (registrations, records, first works). It implicitly routes from find_songwriter but never explicitly contrasts itself with songwriter_by_ipi or check_writers, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition and ID source: a Songlinks person ID (SLP-XXXX-XXXX-X) obtained from find_songwriter or a person page. It does not state when *not* to use it or which sibling to prefer when the user has an IPI instead of a person ID.

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