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

The description adds that it consumes requests or credits, which goes beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation by specifying the resource consumed. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, or if there are rate limits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning its place fully.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated) and the input schema is fully described, the description is mostly complete. It adds the crucial detail about credit consumption. However, it lacks any usage context or limitations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 it generates a sound effect, which is a specific resource. However, among many sibling 'generate' tools (e.g., generate_song, generate_track), there is no differentiation in scope or behavior, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_instrumental, generate_track). The description merely states what it does without context on prerequisites or selection criteria.

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