SunoMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the efficiency characteristic and mentions return values ('Status and audio information'). However, it lacks disclosure of safety traits (read-only vs destructive), error handling behavior for invalid task IDs, or rate limiting details beyond the schema's 'maximum 50' note.

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 with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by efficiency justification, explicit comparison to sibling, bulleted usage conditions, and return value documentation. Slightly redundant bullet points (all variations of 'use for multiple tasks') prevent a perfect 5, but no sentences are wasted.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter tool with output schema. Covers purpose, sibling differentiation, usage scenarios, and return values. Would benefit from error behavior description (e.g., partial vs. total failure on invalid IDs) given the batch nature, but adequate for the complexity level.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation ('List of task IDs to query. Maximum recommended batch size is 50 tasks'). The description implies the batch nature but does not add syntax, format details, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 states specific action ('Query multiple music generation tasks at once') with clear verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'suno_get_task' by noting this is for batch operations and is 'More efficient than calling suno_get_task multiple times.'

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 explicit 'Use this when:' section with three specific scenarios (multiple pending generations, several songs at once, tracking a batch). Explicitly names the alternative approach (calling suno_get_task multiple times) and explains why this tool is preferred (efficiency).

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