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

With readOnlyHint=false present, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that no profile write occurs, that the artist confirms and keeps the results in Audora, that Home is notified, and that the call returns a link. It does not address repeat/idempotent behavior (annotation says idempotentHint=false), which is a minor gap.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences carry genuine behavioral guidance (no profile write, don't route through update_profile). The final sentence about Home is slightly expository but still conveys the user-visible effect.

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 correctly states the return value (the link), describes the side effects, and explains the artist-facing flow. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly, though idempotency remains unaddressed.

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 both parameters (artist, run_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'finished find_online lookup' loosely reinforces run_id's meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 specific action (surface a finished find_online lookup in Audora) and the resource it operates on, and explicitly names the sibling tool find_online as its input source. An agent can distinguish this from update_profile and the other write tools without opening the schema.

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 the prerequisite (a finished find_online lookup) and an explicit alternative to avoid: 'you should not copy the findings into update_profile yourself.' That is a concrete when-to-use plus a named when-not-to-use, leaving little to inference.

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