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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it runs asynchronously, returns a generation_id, requires polling get_generation, and costs $0.05 per sound. The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden and does well. It doesn't mention failure modes or rate limits, but the async pattern and pricing are significant transparency wins.

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 sentences, zero waste. The core function is first, then pricing, then the critical async workflow. Every sentence earns its place and the most important operational detail (poll get_generation) is included without bloat.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the async flow and how to retrieve results, which is the main missing piece an agent would need. It doesn't describe the output format of get_generation, but that's a separate tool's responsibility. The pricing is a nice operational detail. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on failure or how long generation takes.

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 schema already documents both parameters (prompt and duration). The description adds the pricing and async context but doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The duration enum is self-explanatory, and the prompt max length is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: generating sound effects from text. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_music_generator and ai_voice_generator by specifying 'sound effects' and includes pricing and async behavior. The verb 'generates' plus the resource 'sound effects from text' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need sound effects from text) and provides a clear usage pattern: call it, get a generation_id, then poll get_generation. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like ai_music_generator, but the async workflow guidance is strong and the sibling list provides context. The instruction to call get_generation is explicit and actionable.

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