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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It does add the list of analyzed fields and mentions waveform data, which gives some insight into the analysis output. However, it does not disclose any side effects, limitations, or processing nuances beyond the annotation, so the added value is moderate.

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 a single sentence with the core action front-loaded. However, the leading 'Audio Analyzer' repeats the title, and the trailing '[category: analyze]' is unnecessary metadata. These redundancies reduce efficiency slightly but the structure remains clear and concise.

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 only one required parameter and no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (duration, sample rate, bit rate, channels, codec, waveform data), which is essential for an agent to know what the tool produces. It falls short of specifying the structure of waveform data or error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool and existing annotations cover most needs.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, listing supported audio formats. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself; it only lists output fields, which is unrelated to parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyse') and resource ('audio file'), then enumerates concrete output properties (duration, sample rate, bit rate, channels, codec, waveform data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_video or analyze_file by naming audio-specific attributes.

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 usage context is implied by the audio-specific list of properties, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., analyze_video, analyze_metadata) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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