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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: no cost, no account or token consumption, and a downstream attribution obligation for the returned licence terms.

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 tight sentences: the payload first, the cost/auth constraint second, the licence obligation last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description still summarizes them usefully. Missing only the discovery path for pol_id and any error behavior for invalid or unreleased IDs.

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 0%, so the single parameter carries no documentation. The phrase 'a released sample's' implies pol_id identifies a sample, but the description never confirms the pol- ID format or where to obtain a valid value, leaving the burden only partly met.

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 and resource ('Get a released sample's metadata, exact licence, attribution, preview and WAV download URLs'), enumerating the concrete payload. It is distinguishable from search_open_loops by the singular 'a released sample', but never names that sibling or the ID-lookup nature explicitly.

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?

Gives prerequisite guidance (free, no account or tokens required) that tells an agent this call has no auth barrier. However, it offers no when-not conditions and does not route the agent to search_open_loops for discovering a pol_id or to analyze_track for analysis.

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