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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no contradictions and the note about 'discovery' provides a small amount of behavioral context. Since annotations carry the main safety info, the description meets the lowered bar.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with the core action in the first sentence and only one additional qualifying phrase. No filler or redundant 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-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does and where the id comes from. It could mention the return shape, but given the tool's simplicity and the provided annotations, it is complete enough.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is described as 'Sound item id returned by cms_list_sounds', which adds a clear origin and validates the type and minimum. With full schema coverage, this extra context elevates it above the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('one CMS sound item'), distinguishing it from other getters for different content types. It also notes a typical usage flow via 'after cms_list_sounds discovery', which adds specificity.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use the tool ('after cms_list_sounds discovery when needed'), which implies a sequential context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'use cms_list_sounds for multiple items', but the mention of discovery is a useful pointer.

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