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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It communicates a read-only operation and describes the return payload, but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. This is adequate for a simple get-by-slug tool but not deeply transparent.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the valuable return fields. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description lists the key return categories (download URLs, generation prompt, acoustics, character labels), which is enough for an agent to decide on invocation. It does not exhaustively specify response structure, but that is not critical for calling the tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, including an example, so the description adds no necessary parameter information. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('full metadata for one sound') and a specific identifier ('by slug'). It also enumerates distinctive contents (download URLs, generation prompt, measured acoustics), which makes it easily distinguishable from list/search/generate siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a sound slug and need full metadata. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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