SunoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately explains the return value format ('word-level timestamps') and use cases, but omits operational details such as error conditions (invalid audio_id), rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent/read-only.

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 structure is well-organized with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by use-case bullets and return value documentation. The 'Returns:' section at the end is slightly redundant with the second sentence, but the overall length is appropriate and every section adds readability value.

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 low complexity (single string parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the timing data represents without needing to replicate the full output schema structure. A mention of error handling would have improved this to a 5.

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 100% (audio_id is fully documented with title and description). The description mentions 'for a generated song' which provides ecosystem context, but adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself (format, where to obtain it) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific action 'Get timing and subtitle data' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a generated song.' It effectively distinguishes this retrieval tool from sibling generation tools (e.g., suno_generate_music) and other export formats (e.g., suno_get_midi, suno_get_wav) by specifying its unique purpose: word-level timing data.

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 'Use this when:' section provides explicit positive guidance for three distinct scenarios (karaoke, subtitles, video editing). However, it lacks explicit negative guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to use suno_get_lyric_format_guide instead), preventing a perfect score.

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