audio_estimate_tempo_and_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting 'ranked ambiguity,' which tells the agent the tool returns multiple ranked candidates rather than a single definitive answer. It does not disclose details like processing time, file size limits, or what happens with silent or percussive audio, but given the strong annotation coverage, the description adds adequate value without contradiction.

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 of 11 words that front-loads the core action ('Estimate periodic tempo and global major/minor key') and adds the key differentiator ('with ranked ambiguity') at the end. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, repetition of the title, or redundant schema information. This is an exemplary concise definition.

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 tool has a simple 2-parameter schema, an output schema (which presumably documents the ranked results), and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description's mention of 'ranked ambiguity' aligns with the output schema's likely structure. The only missing context is a brief note on what max_seconds does and how it affects results, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50%: the 'path' parameter is documented in the schema ('Absolute path to a decoded audio file'), but 'max_seconds' has no description beyond its type, default, and range. The tool description does not explain what max_seconds controls (e.g., how much audio to analyze) or how it affects the estimate. With half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the description does not fully compensate, but the parameter names and schema constraints are reasonably self-explanatory, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('periodic tempo and global major/minor key') with a distinctive qualifier ('with ranked ambiguity'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling audio analysis tools like audio_analyze_file or audio_transcribe_melody, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The title 'Estimate tempo and musical key' reinforces the same purpose, so the description adds the ranked-ambiguity detail that separates it from a generic analysis tool.

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 context: it is for estimating tempo and key from a decoded audio file, and the 'ranked ambiguity' phrasing suggests it returns multiple candidate interpretations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like audio_analyze_file or audio_transcribe_melody, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the path parameter. The context is clear enough for a straightforward analysis tool, but the lack of explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance keeps it at a 3.

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