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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the constraint that only 'public' soundboards are searched, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not describe pagination or other side effects, but the schema covers parameters like cursor and limit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler. Ideal conciseness for a search tool.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and key filter. The schema handles parameter details (e.g., limit, cursor indicating pagination). No output schema exists, but search results are typically self-explanatory. Minor gap: could mention pagination briefly, but not necessary.

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 each parameter is already described. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the search term and optional TTS filter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the action ('Search for public soundboards by search term') and the resource ('public soundboards'). It also mentions an optional filter (TTS restriction), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sound-search-tool (sounds) and board-fetch-tool (single board fetch).

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 for usage: searching public soundboards via a search term with an optional TTS filter. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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