Get random band

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely useful trait not in structured data: genre-filtered picks re-roll until they match and can take up to ~30 seconds. That latency/retry disclosure materially affects how an agent should call and wait on this tool. It stops short of describing the returned band's shape.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat/cost second. Every clause 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?

For a single-optional-param read tool with readOnlyHint covering safety, the description supplies purpose, optionality, and the key latency caveat. With no output schema, the only minor gap is not indicating what a returned band object contains, but that is a small omission for this tool class.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by framing 'genre' as a 'coarse genre bucket' and explaining the re-roll consequence of filtering. However, it adds no syntax or semantic detail about the 23 allowed enum values or how they behave at boundaries (e.g., near-miss genres failing), leaving the enum itself to carry the meaning.

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+resource ('a random band from the archive') with an explicit scope modifier ('optionally from a coarse genre bucket'). This clearly distinguishes it from the deterministic siblings get_band, browse_bands, and search_bands, which an agent can tell apart without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the random/serendipity nature of the tool, and the genre bucket is presented as optional, but the description never says when to prefer this over browse_bands or search_bands, nor when a genre filter is appropriate. No exclusions or explicit alternative routing are provided.

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