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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds helpful context about not uploading audio, what an empty list means, and how to present matches to the user, though it does not go into side effects or system behavior beyond that.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides concise, non-redundant usage guidance. Each paragraph adds distinct value: what the tool lists, how to use it for `audioId`, and how to handle empty or ambiguous results.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key contextual points including the relationship to video/reel settings, the prohibition on URLs, the upload workflow, and user-facing handling of search results, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (`page` and `limit`) with clear descriptions including defaults and max. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List the audio files in your workspace, newest first.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on audio resources and explicitly ties the tool to resolving an `audioId` for video and scheduled reel settings.

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 explicitly says when to call this tool ('Call this to resolve an `audioId`'), gives behavioral guidance for empty results ('ask the user to upload some in the app, and create the video without audio in the meantime'), and clarifies that this API does not upload audio, setting appropriate expectations.

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