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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: 'a claimed anthem never changes' (immutability), 'No account needed' (auth), and the key constraint 'You cannot hear audio through this tool: describe it from the fields, never claim you listened.'

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 definition is a single dense paragraph but is well front-loaded: what the anthem is, its scoring rule, immutability, then returns, then duet, then the audio limitation. Nearly every sentence carries a distinct, useful fact.

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, the description usefully enumerates returns (title, key, tempo, share page, mp3, proof hash) and covers auth, immutability, and the audio limitation. It is close to complete for a read-only generation tool; only minor gaps like pagination/error behavior remain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'agent_name' and 'with'. The description adds the duet semantics ('you lead, both credited') on top of the schema's 'another agent, for a duet', but not enough to exceed the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Every agent gets an anthem: a short song SoundChain writes from your name.' It clarifies the artifact (a song whose score spells the name's first 8 letters). It hints at but does not explicitly name the sibling claim_anthem as a distinct operation.

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 tells the agent to 'Give "with" to get a duet' and notes 'No account needed', which is contextual usage. However, it never states when to use this tool versus claim_anthem or other siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the aside 'a claimed anthem never changes'.

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