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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: links expire after about an hour and the user must re-request, format defaults to mp3 with wav as the alternative. These are meaningful operational facts an agent needs. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then response guidance, then expiry and parameter defaults. Every sentence carries information; it is slightly dense but not padded.

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?

Return keys (download_url, editor_url) and link expiry are explained, and an output schema exists so return structure needn't be detailed. Covers the essentials for calling and acting on the result, with only auth/permission context absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by clarifying the omit-both-for-full-track interaction and the mp3 default/wav option, which reinforces the schema's conditional duration_sec semantics.

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 and resource ('cut audio') plus the accepted source platforms and the primary return artifact (a short-lived download link). It is clearly distinct from get_transcript, but it never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete usage direction: prefer download_url for cut/download requests, offer editor_url when the user wants to tweak the selection, and omit start_sec/end_sec for the full track. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance (e.g., 'use get_transcript instead for text'), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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