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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: the tool is asynchronous, returns state values, produces a mediaRef when done, and uses a shared three-file download queue with stock video. It also clarifies that repeated polling is expected, consistent with the idempotent annotation.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose, output location, async polling behavior, and queue semantics appear in that order. Every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct operational concern.

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?

For an asynchronous download tool with no output schema, the description covers the full operational picture: what is downloaded, where it lands, how polling works, what the terminal state looks like, and why a 'queued' state is not an error.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context, such as the output filename using the sound id, but it does not add meaningful syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: downloads one Freesound sound into the project media pool. It adds concrete identity details (HQ MP3 preview, virtual file at Library root, `freesound-<id>.mp3`) that clearly distinguish it from search, import, and stock-media 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 gives clear usage flow: first call accepts the download, subsequent calls with the same arguments poll until state becomes 'done'. It also names the natural next step (`add_clips`) and explains that 'queued' is normal, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over stock-media alternatives.

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