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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining it is a composite tool that runs multiple analysis functions, lists all return fields, and shows example output. No contradiction exists.

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 description is well-structured with a summary sentence, explanation of composition, pipeline context, parameter description, list of returns, and an example. It is slightly long but every section adds value and 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return fields and shows an example. The pipeline context and parameter semantics make it complete for a single-parameter analysis tool.

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?

The single parameter 'filename' is explained in the description: 'Name of the WAV file in the exports directory (without path), or absolute path to any WAV file.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition, especially since schema coverage is 0%.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'full audio analysis in one call' including BPM, key, LUFS, duration, and dynamic range. It explicitly characterizes itself as a composite tool replacing three separate calls (detect_bpm, detect_key, measure_lufs), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

The description provides a specific pipeline example for the Suno remix workflow and notes that it eliminates three separate calls. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternative tools, the context is clear and helpful for the intended use case.

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