qm_lyrics_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the price and rail, the authoritative 402 challenge, the two-phase handshake, and explicit non-behaviors ('never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds'), plus resale permissions. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before the payment mechanics, and most sentences earn their place. Slightly long, with the payment-rail details echoed again in the schema, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

Complete for a paid read tool: it covers what is returned ('the data comes back in the tool result'), cost, payment sequence, safety guarantees, and licensing. No output schema exists, but the return behavior is still stated, so nothing an agent needs 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates the 'payment' omit-then-recall workflow rather than adding new syntax or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Lyric text + title/album metadata for one track from the 116-song catalog'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (qm_data_lyric_quote), but the 'one track' scope and 'his own words' framing effectively separate it.

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 explicit when-to-use for the two-phase flow: call without 'payment' to obtain the live requirements, then re-call with 'payment' set. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives such as qm_data_lyric_quote or qm_buy for adjacent needs.

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