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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two genuinely new traits: "by meaning" discloses that matching is semantic rather than keyword-based, and "Cost: Free" discloses billing behavior that no annotation conveys. It does not discuss result ordering or result volume, which keeps it from 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the handoff to set_audio, then the cost note. No restatement of the title and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 a full parameter schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the definition needs only to establish purpose, semantic matching, cost, and the downstream placement step, all of which it does. The only residual gap is ranking/result-set behavior, which is minor given the output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every one of the six parameters carrying its own explanation, examples, and enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the semantic intent of the query parameter via "by meaning"; it adds nothing about how category, character, or duration bounds interact.

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?

"Search sound effects by meaning" gives a specific verb (search), resource (sound effects), and method (semantic matching), which cleanly separates it from the similarly named find_broll (video) and from mutation siblings like set_audio. The follow-up clause "Place one with set_audio" further pins its scope as retrieval-only, though it stops short of calling out other search/list siblings.

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 implies a search-then-place workflow via "Place one with set_audio" and adds a cost signal, which gives an agent enough context to know this is the lookup step before audio placement. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for browsing versus searching assets, so the guidance stays implicit.

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