Analyze a track

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: no processing, fast/cheap, and critically what is NOT measured (true peak, loudness range) with a pointer to get_job. That negative scoping is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the measurement scope followed by cost/workflow and the negative note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers what is measured, latency/cost, when to invoke, and the true-peak/loudness-range exclusion. 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema description coverage is 100% with a detailed audio_url description covering formats and share-link resolution. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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?

States a specific verb (Measure) and resource (track) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: integrated LUFS, sample peak, duration, sample rate, stereo correlation. The explicit contrast with processing-oriented siblings like master_track ('without processing') lets an agent route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear workflow context — run this before choosing a preset — plus cost/latency signals ('Free, a couple of seconds'). It also diverts the agent for true peak/loudness range to get_job. It does not explicitly name master_track as the alternative step, keeping it from a perfect score.

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