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

With all annotations false, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the advisory-only nature, never refusing a valid user choice, the requirement for render_preview when using output_times, and that it is project-scoped. These are behavioral details beyond any structured field, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It starts with the most critical scoping constraint ('PROJECT-SCOPED'), then the core action, then parameter modes, then usage domain, and ends with the advisory note. No filler; each clause adds a distinct 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?

The definition covers the main usage scenarios, return content (project identity + assessment), and key preconditions. It lacks explicit mention of the output format (though there is no output schema) and does not describe span_s or question semantics. For a tool with six parameters, it is more complete than most, but not fully exhaustive.

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 only 17% (only project_id is documented). The description compensates by explaining asset_key ('uploaded/fetched song, audio-only file, clip or render'), times ('seconds within that asset' or SOURCE sound when no asset_key), and output_times ('reviews the CURRENT rendered program'). However, span_s and question are not explicitly defined, leaving a small gap.

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 specific action ('Listen to bounded REAL audio and return its professional assessment') on a specific resource, distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_audio_analysis and audit_audio_mix as authorities for other audio dimensions, and notes it is project-scoped. This gives an agent a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for vibe, recording quality, intelligibility, masking and mix judgment; get_audio_analysis remains the authority for BPM/beats/energy and audit_audio_mix for authored roles.' It also explains the three parameter modes (asset_key, times, output_times) and the precondition for output_times (render_preview first). This is a model of usage guidance.

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