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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: catalog names/descriptions are untrusted data to be treated as data, never instructions, which is a real prompt-injection guardrail the annotations do not convey.

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 purpose, then usage routing, then the data-safety note. Four compact sentences with no filler, though the mid-section about genre tags and search_sounds slightly interrupts the flow. Everything stated 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?

No output schema, so the description carries the return burden, and it sufficiently signals that results are packs with names/descriptions plus a pointer to get_pack for sounds. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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% (q and per_page documented, page not). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that q matches genre words like 'video-game-music', clarifying matching semantics rather than just the field name. It does not cover the undocumented page parameter, leaving a small gap.

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 (Find) and resource (public packs) and immediately defines what a pack is with concrete examples ('a game's UI sounds, a horror collection'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_sounds and get_pack, so the agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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 clear routing: use get_pack for a pack's sounds, and notes that search_sounds results name their pack. It also explains the genre-tagging behavior that makes q match 'video-game-music'. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the context is clear.

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