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.