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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context — the numeric output shape (peak level 0..1 per channel, 16 values/second, 60 s per page) and the 'Read-only, free' cost/safety note. However, it cites pagination via `weiter_von_s`, which does not exist in the schema, muddying the behavioral picture.

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 input forms, then the use case, then pagination. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the one wasted clause is the non-existent `weiter_von_s` reference.

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?

Covers input selection, output semantics, pagination, and the analytical purpose with no output schema to lean on. It falls short only because the pagination parameter it names does not match the actual schema (`von_s`/`bis_s`), leaving the continuation path ambiguous.

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. The description usefully maps video_id/audio_id/asset_key to input forms, but it also references `weiter_von_s` and `stille_unter`, neither of which is a schema property, which can mislead an agent trying to paginate or set a threshold.

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 (read) and resource (the sound/waveform of a clip, audio track, or uploaded file) and enumerates exactly which id combination selects each input. An agent can tell this apart from sibling analyzers without opening a 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 concrete when-to-use guidance: find where music/speech starts, locate silence, check whether a cut lands on a beat or mid-word, and explicitly 'before you move cut points'. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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