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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: input is downloaded from a public HTTPS URL, stored in Cloudflare R2 during the job, processed in a headless browser, deleted after the job, and results expire after 1 hour. However, it doesn't clarify permission/auth needs or why it isn't idempotent as annotated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and a key clarification about not sending. However, the latter half contains implementation details (R2 storage, headless browser) that are tangential to invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Given no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description fills gaps by explaining return behavior (download links, 1-hour expiry) and input handling. It's nearly complete for a tool with these annotations.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only mentions outputFormat and bitrateKbps briefly, adding no syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: preparing audio to fit Discord's upload limit via recompression or splitting. It distinguishes itself from the many conversion siblings by routing to Discord-specific sizing, though the 'send' name is clarified by 'does not send anything to Discord'. Clear enough to identify the tool.

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?

Explains what the tool does and that it doesn't send, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like audio_compressor or audio_splitter. The Discord upload-limit context implies usage but isn't framed as guidance.

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