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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that no API key is required, that returned URLs are direct and hotlinkable, and that each result includes acoustics and character labels. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a non-destructive keyword search the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 dense, well-structured sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by useful output and selection details. Every clause 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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the input style, licensing, URL output format, and result metadata. It relies on the schema for limit and category details and does not address sibling alternatives, but a caller can confidently invoke the tool with just this description.

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 the schema already documents query, limit, and category. The description complements the schema by explaining what the query does and what the results contain, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the structured descriptions, matching the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search ... sound effects by keyword') and clearly communicates a search/retrieval purpose. It is distinct from its siblings semantically ('search' vs 'generate'/'get'), though it does not explicitly call out the sibling tools, so it falls just short of full 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a CC0 sound effect by keyword and want direct, hotlinkable URLs without authentication or attribution. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but it gives enough context to guide selection.

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