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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: 15-minute link expiry, no auth header needed, per-key download limits with 24-hour dedup, a separate cap on file fetches, and the fact that a sound's file never changes. This explains why readOnlyHint=false (calls consume quota) without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Front-loads the core action before the qualifications on gain, expiry, and limits. The single dense paragraph is long, but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs; only minor tightening is possible.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape (url, curl command, page_url), expiry and retry behavior, and quota accounting. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and act on this tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the default is level-matched to the catalog (one gain, no compression, gain_db reports the amount) and variant="original" yields the untouched master. That clarifies the practical consequence of the enum beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch the full-quality file (usually WAV) for one sound and return a direct link plus curl command. It is unambiguous what the tool produces, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_sound, so an agent must infer that this is the file-fetch path rather than the metadata path.

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?

Gives concrete when/when-not guidance: fetch right away with the returned curl command, re-call if the link expires, hand over page_url instead if files can't be saved, and only download sounds you mean to use because each one consumes quota. Alternatives to the tool itself (get_sound) are still not named.

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