suno_check_audio_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses synchronous behavior, the limited meaning of available=true, that unknown availability raises an error rather than returning false, API-token requirements, and zero current Credit cost. These are meaningful operational details beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, moving from purpose to behavioral caveats to operational requirements without wasted text. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter availability check with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description supplies the behavioral and operational context an agent needs. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 schema already fully documents the single audio_id parameter, including that it is a completed song UUID and not a task_id. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: checking current-channel audio availability synchronously. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the availability-check framing and the note that success only reports available=true, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The synchronous nature and caveat provide some context, but exclusions are absent.

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