Lots of Sounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds two pieces of context not in the annotations: the catalog is 'bounded' (limited scope) and no account/auth is needed. It stops short of noting pagination or how many results come back.

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, zero filler, with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the auth note as a secondary clause.

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-optional-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its access constraints. The only real gap is its failure to contrast with search_sounds, which would complete the routing picture.

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 100%, so both 'q' and 'limit' are already documented with examples and a max of 12. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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+resource ('Return curated free CC0 sample sounds') and constrains the source to the 'bounded Lots of Sounds catalog'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_sounds, so an agent must infer the difference between browsing and searching.

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?

'No account is required' implies a low-friction, public browsing use case, which is useful context. But it names no alternative and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, so routing between this and search_sounds remains a guess.

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?

Annotations declare this is not read-only, not idempotent and not open-world, and the description usefully adds two behaviors the annotations cannot convey: the URL is time-limited to one hour, and a connected account is mandatory. It does not say whether the call consumes quota, mutates server state, or whether re-calling produces a new URL — minor gaps against an already-informative annotation set.

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, front-loaded with the return value, followed by the prerequisite and the usage gate. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 fully compensates by describing the return value (signed URL, one-hour expiry) and the auth requirement. For a one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and supporting annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from search_sounds, so the schema carries the load. The description only adds that the sound lives in the 'bounded Lots of Sounds catalog', which does not deepen understanding of the id beyond what the schema states; 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 ('Return a time-limited signed download URL ... for a sound') and names the concrete artifact produced, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name the sibling it differs from (get_sound for metadata, search_sounds for discovery), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use this only when the user is ready to download' gives an explicit gating condition, and 'A connected account is required' states a prerequisite. It implies but never names the alternative (get_sound) for users who only want to inspect a sound, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the profile is request-scoped and tied to the active plugin account, meaning the result is identity data rather than arbitrary account browsing.

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, purpose first and the usage constraint second, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus the request-scoping note cover the behavior. The only minor gap is not stating what an agent should expect (error vs. null) when no profile is connected to the request.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline for a 0-param tool 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 concrete verb+resource ('Return the ... profile') and scopes it as the profile bound to the current request. It is clearly distinguishable from the sound-oriented siblings, though 'stable Lots of Sounds profile' is slightly jargon-y rather than plain.

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 second sentence gives an explicit usage restriction — 'Use it only to identify the active plugin account' — which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and implicitly when not to reach for it. It does not name an alternative tool, but with no sibling doing profile lookup there is little to route away from.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the otherwise-undocumented auth requirement, which is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It stops short of describing the returned metadata fields or any rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the prerequisite. No filler words and nothing 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?

For a single-param read tool fully covered by annotations and schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Since no output schema exists, a brief hint at what 'full metadata' contains would close the last gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that the id comes from search_sounds. The description's 'by ID' adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the 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 (Fetch) and resource (full metadata for one sound) plus the scoping mechanism (by ID) and the catalog boundary. It implicitly separates itself from search_sounds by emphasizing single-record retrieval, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 supplies a real precondition ('A connected account is required') but gives no when-to-use routing against siblings like search_sounds or download_sound. Usage context is implied by the phrase 'by ID' rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the account/auth requirement and by describing what results contain (onset/peak/tail timing in ms, LUFS and true peak, conditional on the sound having been analysed).

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the what, then the prerequisite, then the practical query constraint, then the result shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, no-required-param search tool whose annotations cover safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: auth prerequisite, matching semantics, and return-field content in the absence of an output schema. Minor remaining gaps are pagination/sort behavior and what error surfaces when no account is connected.

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 only 56%, so the description needs to carry weight, and it does: it explains the AND-matching semantics of q (every word must match name, description or tag), the role of tags and max_duration for narrowing, and the duration filter. It leaves page/sort/order/limit to the schema, but those are largely self-explanatory or documented there.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Lots of Sounds CC0 catalog') and enumerates the searchable facets (keyword, tags, category, duration), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling browse_samples, so an agent must infer the search-vs-browse boundary.

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?

Gives actionable query-building guidance ('Each word in the query must match... so use short keywords and narrow the search with tags or max_duration') and a prerequisite ('A connected account is required'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it (e.g. when to prefer browse_samples).

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