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

Excellent: discloses download of the remote URL, temporary R2 storage, headless-browser processing on Cloudflare, deletion of input when the job ends, and 1-hour expiry of output links. Annotations only cover safety hints, so this descriptive pipeline detail is genuinely valuable.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, followed by input requirements, options, and infrastructure details. No filler sentences; all content earns its place, though it could be broken up for scannability.

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?

Covers input constraints, optional settings, output link lifetime, and processing/lifecycle behavior. For a 4-param tool with nested files and no output schema, this is largely complete. Could mention input file limits (e.g. max 12, single file) but the schema handles that.

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 four parameters with examples (mp3, wav, m4a) and constraints (exclusiveMinimum, maxItems 12). The description restates outputFormat and bitrateKbps but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: applies an equalizer preset to an input file. Clear what it does. Does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like bass_booster or audio_normalizer, which also shape frequency response, so a small gap remains.

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?

Implied by 'Applies an equalizer preset' but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. bass_booster for low-end emphasis). No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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