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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot: it evaluates the stores' intake rules against the uploaded master and cover, and it discloses the two-tier result shape (blocking items vs. things "worth a second look that does not block it"). Useful, though nothing on latency, caching, or how stale a prior check may be.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the format details and the call-timing advice. The parenthetical format list is dense but earns its place as concrete acceptance criteria. Slightly heavy for a read-only check but no real filler.

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 read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage, the description is complete: it states the applicable scope, what is inspected, the two categories of findings, and when to invoke it. No output schema exists, but the description already characterizes the response content, so there is no gap an agent must guess at.

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%, so the schema already documents artist, album_id and track_id, including the label-vs-artist connection rule and the mutual exclusivity of album_id/track_id. The description only restates "one track or one album" and adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource: it audits one track or one album for what Audora still needs before submission, separating blockers from non-blocking observations. The scope is crisp and the return content is described. It does not, however, set itself apart from a plausibly overlapping sibling such as get_requirements, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

"Call this after writing, and again before telling the artist something is ready" gives two concrete trigger points, which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it (e.g., versus get_requirements or report_gap), so it is a 4, not a 5.

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