get_timestamped_lyrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns (timestamped lyrics) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, network calls, or any caveats. For a tool that likely performs an API fetch, the description lacks necessary behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence plus a 'NEW' prefix. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and uses, wasting no words. Every part 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?

Given no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return format (e.g., structure of timestamped words). It mentions use cases but omits what the agent will actually receive. For a simple 2-param tool, the missing output details reduce completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have meaningful descriptions like 'Suno task ID' and 'Audio ID from sunoData'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get word-level timestamped lyrics from a Suno track.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), specifies the resource ('word-level timestamped lyrics'), and names the source ('Suno track'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_lyrics' (which creates lyrics) and 'speech_to_text' (which transcribes audio), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for karaoke, captioning, or sync.' However, it does not offer guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Given the large set of sibling tools, explicit exclusions or comparisons would improve this dimension.

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