Lots of Sounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the samples are CC0 licensed, curated, and require no API key, which is valuable context beyond what the schema shows. It does not detail output format or pagination, but for a simple browse tool the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior, licensing, auth requirement, and usage context are all front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 a simple two-parameter browse tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what it returns, the license, and that no key is required. It could mention that results are a list of samples, but the title and verb 'browse' make that reasonably inferable.

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 parameters are already documented: q is an optional natural-language search and limit has a max of 12. The description adds 'curated' but does not provide additional meaning about either parameter beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('curated free CC0 sample sounds'), making it clear this is a read-only listing tool. The title and description together distinguish it from siblings like download_sound and get_sound, which imply retrieving individual sounds rather than browsing a set.

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 context: use this to demo the catalog before a Pro key is available, and it explicitly notes no API key is required. It does not explicitly contrast with search_sounds or state when to choose one over the other, but the 'demo before Pro key' framing gives a practical when-to-use signal.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the time-limited nature (expires in 1 hour), the signed URL output, and the Pro/Enterprise API key requirement. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent must know before calling. It does not mention response format or error cases, but the core behaviors are covered.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose and expiry, key requirement, and usage timing. No redundancy; information is front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema) and the description covers the essential operational constraints (expiry, key requirement, usage timing). It does not discuss rate limits or error handling, but those are less critical given the simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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%, and the schema already describes 'id' as 'The sound id returned by search_sounds.' The description adds no extra parameter context, but since the schema is fully descriptive, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a time-limited signed download URL for a sound, specifying the expiry (1 hour) and the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_sounds (search) and get_sound (likely metadata retrieval) by emphasizing the signed URL behavior.

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 provides a clear condition: 'Only call this when the user is ready to download.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose statement implies this is for the final download step, which is sufficient guidance given the sibling tools' distinct purposes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (API key), which is behavioral. It implies a read operation (fetch) but does not elaborate on side effects, error handling, or what 'full metadata' includes. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch full metadata for one sound by id') followed by the authentication requirement. There is no wasted wording.

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 a single-parameter get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context (id and API key requirement). It does not describe the returned metadata shape, but that may be acceptable given the simplicity. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter and describes its provenance ('returned by search_sounds'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('full metadata for one sound by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_sounds (search) and download_sound (download). It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Pro or Enterprise API key), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, though the 'by id' phrasing implies use when an id is already known. The parameter schema provides the hint that the id comes from search_sounds, but that is not in the tool description itself.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important traits: the scope ('full royalty-free (CC0) catalog'), an access constraint (Pro/Enterprise key), and preferred query phrasing with an example. It does not mention rate limits, failure modes, or result format, but for a search tool the disclosed traits are substantive.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, then the key requirement, then a practical query tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, so more context is needed. The description covers scope, authentication, and query style, but does not explain pagination/sorting parameters (page, limit, sort, order) or what the response looks like, leaving an agent to guess at the result structure.

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 description coverage is 56%, so the description must compensate. It adds a useful semantic tip for the primary parameter q ('gentle notification chime' over 'chime') and mentions tags, category, and duration filters, but it adds nothing for page, sort, order, or limit behavior, leaving those partially undocumented.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the full royalty-free (CC0) catalog') with clear search dimensions (natural-language query, tags, category, duration). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like download_sound and get_sound, which are retrieval tools rather than a catalog-wide search.

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 provides clear usage context: it searches the full catalog and requires a Pro or Enterprise API key, which is a concrete precondition. It gives query-style guidance ('Prefer descriptive natural-language queries') but does not explicitly contrast with browse_samples, download_sound, or get_sound, so it stops short of a full 5.

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