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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the API-key dependency, the exact error code and where the user reconnects, the full return payload (description, tags, rating, download count, format, AudioCommons descriptors), the downloaded flag, and license implications. For an open-world tool with no output schema, this is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value (return fields, license rules, error behavior). It is dense and the enumerated ac_ descriptor list is long, edging toward wall-of-text, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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 return contents and does so thoroughly (ratings, duration, descriptors, downloaded flag). Combined with the auth error path and license guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the license values mean (CC0 needs nothing, BY needs attribution, BY-NC excludes commercial) and steering toward cc0/by for commercial projects. It adds real semantic weight beyond 'cc0 | by | by-nc'.

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 – 'Searches the Freesound library (SFX, ambience, foley)' – which is concrete enough that an agent can tell it apart from generic media search tools. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like search_stock_media or search_media, leaving the distinction implicit in the library name.

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 advice for one parameter ('prefer cc0/by via the license arg when the project may be commercial') and explains the PERMISSION_REQUIRED failure path. But it never states when to choose this tool over search_media, search_stock_media, or download_sound, so tool selection guidance is only implied by the library scope.

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