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

Annotations declare it is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds that it is free, responds in seconds, and returns text rather than audio – useful operational context. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but it does more than repeat 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?

Two compact sentences plus a routing sentence and endpoint. The key constraint ('without making audio') and output ('returns the lyrics text') are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, cost/latency, output type, and next-step routing. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps like 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies the core input ('from an idea' corresponds to the prompt) and the non-audio output, adding a little meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the account parameter, but the schema already documents it fully.

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 verb+resource ('Write song lyrics'), distinguishes from audio-making siblings with 'without making audio', and names the exact output ('returns the lyrics text'). An agent can tell this apart from mureka_create_song and mureka_create_song_with_lyrics immediately.

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 what to do next: pass the result to mureka_create_song_with_lyrics, mureka_extend_song, or mureka_edit_section. It also clarifies the boundary ('without making audio'), which routes the agent away from audio-creation tools.

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