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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: the VAD data provenance ('made at upload'), the fallback behavior when no speech data exists, and that results are returned in both source time and mapped timeline positions. It does not describe pagination or the exact shape of the returned ranges, which keeps it below a 5.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first clause, and every following clause carries information (method fallback, return-value form). The parenthetical stacking ('(Silero VAD, made at upload)', '(no transcript needed)') makes it a dense single sentence rather than cleanly separated guidance, but there is no 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 carries the burden of describing results and does so by stating that ranges are returned in source time and mapped onto the timeline, plus naming the detection source. Combined with a mostly-documented 5-parameter schema and clear annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining cross-parameter interaction the schema only hints at: thresholdDb only matters under method "audio", and the audio path is also used implicitly when speech data is absent. It still does not clarify units or behavior for minDuration (schema only says 'default 0.5s').

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: finding pauses/gaps in a media file, with two detection methods spelled out (speech gaps via Silero VAD vs. amplitude below thresholdDb). The only gap is that it never names the sibling remove_silences, which an agent might otherwise confuse this read-only detection with, so sibling differentiation is only partially achieved.

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?

It gives useful conditional guidance for choosing a method: 'speech' works from VAD data made at upload, and 'audio' applies when there is no speech data yet or when a dB threshold is wanted. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus remove_silences (detect vs. delete) or versus get_transcript, so an agent must infer the routing.

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