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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call, and the description usefully adds what the side effect actually is: it records a request for a human to follow up by email, not a report generation. It does not discuss duplicate requests or rate limits, so it stops short of fully rich behavioral context.

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, each earning its place: what it does, what it records, and the consent gating rule. Front-loaded with the action and its human-follow-up nature before the constraints.

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 low-parameter request-submission tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies the missing context: that no report is generated, a person follows up, and consent is required. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 every parameter is already documented with type, bounds, and meaning. The description restates the key fields (name, email, organisation, ISRCs/description) and the consent gate but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ask for a full music royalties and registration review of a catalogue') and explicitly disambiguates from what siblings might suggest by noting it does not generate or send a report. An agent can distinguish this from check_catalogue, lookup_recording, and validate_cwr 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when the user has asked for a follow-up and agreed to be contacted') plus a hard prerequisite ('consent_to_contact must be true'). It also states the negative case ('does not generate or send a report'), leaving nothing to inference.

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