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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered 'best first', each sound carries a listen_url, and catalog names/descriptions are untrusted data that must not be followed as instructions. That injection warning is valuable and not derivable from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the return shape, then the usage trigger, then the safety caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 must describe the return value, and it does: a pack plus a page of sounds, ordered best-first, each with a listen_url. It does not explain how pagination interacts with 'page'/'per_page' or how to know when the page is exhausted, which is a minor gap for a 3-param 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?

Schema coverage is 67%: 'id' documents its provenance and 'per_page' documents its default/max, but 'page' is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond hinting that sounds are paged, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 names the exact payload — one pack plus a page of its sounds — which lets an agent distinguish this fetch-by-id tool from the search siblings. The verb is only implied ('get'), and it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_packs or get_sound, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use it when someone likes a sound and wants more in the same style' gives a concrete triggering scenario, which is stronger than most siblings get. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when you only have a sound id, use get_sound).

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