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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden; it discloses that the tool 'returns deviation analysis with severity-ranked suggestions' and gives example output, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, or how invalid filenames/genres are handled.

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 front-loaded with the core action, uses a scannable bullet list for output dimensions, and then gives parameter details and an example. It is slightly long but every section earns its place.

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?

The description covers inputs, output style, dimensions, and example; output schema handles return details. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., exported WAV existence) but is otherwise complete for a two-parameter analysis tool.

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 0%, yet the description documents both required parameters: filename (WAV in exports dir or absolute path) and genre (with an explicit list of accepted values). It even provides an example call, going well beyond the bare schema.

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 leads with 'Compare your mix against a professional genre reference profile' and enumerates the exact deviation dimensions (LUFS, spectrum, stereo width, dynamics, spectral centroid), making it distinct from generic analysis tools and the sibling compare_to_reference.

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 clearly frames the tool's use case (genre-standards comparison) and provides a concrete example, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools like compare_to_reference or match_to_reference, nor when not to use it.

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