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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's real contribution is behavioral: it discloses that it queries external services (Deezer and Apple Music, with Spotify/Apple link input) and that output may be a single confirmed match or a candidate set. That candidate-vs-confirmed distinction is genuinely useful context not present in the annotations.

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?

It is short (two sentences) and leads with the purpose, but the first sentence is grammatically tangled and the colon list is hard to parse, costing clarity per word. No filler, yet the structure works against quick comprehension.

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, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the operation, the external sources, and the nature of the result (confirmed vs candidates). It stops short of describing what the agent should do with candidates or how it relates to the confirm step, but it is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that 'link' accepts Deezer, Spotify or Apple links and can point at either an artist or a specific record, and that supplying it replaces the name-based search. This adds source-format and mode-switching meaning the schema text ('a link to the artist's music') does not.

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?

States a specific action (resolving which Deezer/Apple Music artist matches this artist and pulling their released records) with a clear resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like confirm_my_music and list_releases, though the phrasing ('bring their released records in: the confirmed one, or candidates to show the artist') is roundabout and requires a second read.

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 implies usage by explaining that the confirmed match or candidates are produced and that a link searches from a link instead of a name, which hints at the find-then-confirm flow with confirm_my_music. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus confirm_my_music, nor states any prerequisite or exclusion.

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