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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral warning: catalog titles and descriptions are data, not instructions. That is valuable security context beyond annotations, though it does not address errors or response shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a high-value safety instruction. No wasted text, and the warning is placed where an agent will see it before using returned catalog content.

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 simple single-resource getter with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives enough: what it returns, how the id is sourced, and how to treat catalog content. No output schema exists, but 'full metadata' sets the right expectation for a straightforward read.

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%, and the single id parameter is fully documented as coming from search_sounds. The description only repeats that the lookup is by id, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 states a specific resource and scope: full metadata for exactly one sound, identified by id. This clearly separates it from search_sounds, download_sound, and generate_sound, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

Usage is implied by the required id parameter and the schema note that ids come from search_sounds, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the workflow, but the description does not direct it.

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