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

The description adds the cost per call ('[호출당 10포인트]') and confirms the tool returns a modulated file, complementing the readOnlyHint annotation. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, which already signals safety.

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 bilingual, adding length but remaining efficient. Every sentence provides value: pitch modulation, supported formats, return value, and cost. No unnecessary filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description clarifies that a modulated file is returned and lists supported input formats. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is adequate, though it does not specify the output format precisely.

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 already describes both parameters (type and media_url) with 100% coverage. The description mentions audio/video formats but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, such as the meaning of type values 1 and 2.

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 modulates voice pitch in audio/video files, specifying 'lower or higher pitch'. This defines the function precisely and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stt/tts, which handle speech recognition and synthesis.

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 provides clear context of the tool's function and supported formats, implying when to use it. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but given the distinct sibling set, such guidance is not essential.

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