analyze_audio

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 the pricing model (0.15 USDC, 0.25 with lyrics), the payment mechanism (per-request x402 micro-payment on Base), and the fact that local files are read in binary and uploaded. It omits failure modes, file-size or duration limits, and any timeout/rate-limit behavior, so not 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?

It is one dense paragraph rather than a bulleted structure, but it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and output payloads before moving to input modes and cost. Nearly every clause carries information an agent needs; the cost sentence is long but justified since no annotations declare pricing.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, both input modes, optional lyric extraction, returned payload field names (ai_detection, arEvaluation), and billing. What is missing is operational robustness detail such as supported size/duration limits and error behavior, which matters given the paid-per-request model.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: filePath files are 'read in binary and uploaded' (a transfer behavior the schema does not state) and extractLyrics is tied to a concrete cost delta (0.25 vs 0.15 USDC). The zero-required-parameter situation is also implicitly explained by the either/or input model.

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 names a specific verb (analyzes) and resource (music track or audio file) and enumerates the exact outputs: metadata (BPM, genre, mood, key, instruments), AI-generation verdict, A&R scoring, and optional lyrics. It never names the sibling tools (analyze_audio_with_lyrics, analyze_audio_batch), so the agent must infer the boundary itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives solid guidance on input selection (use filePath for local files, recordings, or saved attachments; fileUrl for remote URLs) and on the lyrics option. But it never states when to pick this tool over analyze_audio_with_lyrics or analyze_audio_batch, which are the two most likely confusions given the sibling set.

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