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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description agrees (no mutation implied). Description adds rich behavioral detail: what analysis components are returned (contour profile, interval histogram, etc.) and example usage. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured: summary line, bullet-point list of analysis outputs, 'Useful for' list, parameter explanations, and example. Front-loaded with key info. Slightly lengthy but earns its space with comprehensive details.

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?

Given the complexity of a melodic analysis tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, outputs (via bullet list), use cases, and parameter details. Output schema exists, so return values are adequately specified elsewhere.

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 0%, but description provides clear explanations for all parameters (unit_index: AU index, track_index: Note track index, region_index: Region (-1 = first region)). This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Analyze melodic content' with a specific verb and resource, and lists detailed outputs (contour, intervals, climax, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling analysis tools by focusing exclusively on melody, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides a 'Useful for' section with clear contexts (e.g., understanding a melody before variation, comparing melodies, feeding to create_motif_variations). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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