Decode an iReal Pro URL

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions a 'best-effort measure list' which acknowledges potential limitations, but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe other behavioral aspects like error handling.

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 a single sentence with a clear verb and list of outputs, making it concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the return components (title, composer, etc.) sufficiently. It covers input format and output, but lacks details on error cases or edge scenarios, which are less critical for this simple 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 100% for the single parameter 'url', and the description's explanation matches the schema description exactly, adding no additional value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 parses an iReal Pro URL into components like title, composer, style, etc. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_chart or analyze_chart, which could have overlapping contexts.

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 implies usage for editing existing charts by decoding their URLs, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or provide exclusions. The context is implied but not detailed.

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