Get lyrics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the concrete behavior behind that mutability – a file_path kicks off a segment run, an analysis_id does not, and the call blocks briefly while Audial's vocal stem is produced. It also documents the instrumental edge case. It does not cover authentication, quotas, or failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by input routing, timing behavior, and return shape in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input-choice semantics, the wait behavior after a fresh analysis, the shape of metadata.lines/lyrics/section_lyrics, where word timings live, and the instrumental case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds run-accounting semantics ('included in that analysis's run', 'nothing is uploaded', 'one run') that the schema fields do not spell out. That extra cost/upload meaning earns it above the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Transcribe a track's lyrics as timed lines.' It distinguishes itself from the segment sibling by explaining that an analysis_id reuses an existing analysis while a file_path triggers segment first, so an agent can tell the two paths apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states which input to supply and the consequence of each: analysis_id reuses a run, file_path starts one. It also warns that right after a new analysis the call waits a few minutes for the vocal stem. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative when lyrics aren't wanted, but the within-tool routing guidance is clear.

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