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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: an account-level authorization restriction (refused off the owner's account), an ordering policy relative to generation tools, and the exact return fields (sound_id, description, length, seconds, audio_url) even though no output schema exists.

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?

Lead sentence front-loads purpose and corpus; constraints, return shape, and defaults follow in a logical order. The long parenthetical sound list and the repeated limit/length details cost some tightness, but every sentence carries usable information.

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 3-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the account gate, the correct ordering versus sibling generation tools, defaults/caps, and the returned fields. An agent has enough to decide and call correctly without opening anything else.

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% and the schema already documents 'search', the length enum with its second thresholds, and limit default/max. The description restates the same length and limit semantics rather than adding new meaning (e.g. how query phrasing affects matching quality). 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('sound effects, music beds and ambience in the Switch Motion Sound Library'), then enumerates categories (whooshes, transitions, hits, ambient, music beds) so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It is clearly distinct from the generate_* siblings it names.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: on the owner's account, use this before making any new sound effect ('the library comes first', one effect per real moment). Explicit when-not/alternative: any other account is refused, so use generate_sound_effect or generate_music there. Nothing is left to inference.

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