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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return contents (download URLs, description, acoustics) but does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple get, this is adequate but not fully 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope ('Get full metadata for one sound by slug') followed by a compact list of return fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what to pass (slug), what you get back (metadata fields), and the scope (one sound). It lacks explicit error handling or how to obtain a slug, but those are minor for this simple operation.

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% (slug is described with an example), so the schema already explains the parameter. The description adds only that the slug identifies the sound whose metadata is fetched, which is marginal value beyond the structured data. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full metadata for one sound by slug'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_sounds (searching) and get_sound_set (multiple sounds). It also enumerates the key contents (download URLs, description, acoustics), leaving no ambiguity 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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a sound slug and need full metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the 'by slug' phrasing gives enough context for an agent to infer the appropriate trigger.

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