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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description's 'List' is consistent with these annotations and adds no further behavioral information, but there is no contradiction.

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 short and to the point, containing only the essential verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and the format is clean and easy to parse.

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 provided, the description does not explain return fields or pagination behavior. However, the purpose is clear enough for a simple list operation, and the sibling tools follow a similar pattern, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 fully described in the schema as 'Sound item id returned by cms_list_sounds.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('body paragraphs for one CMS sound item'), and the title/name disambiguates from sibling paragraph-listing tools by specifying 'sound'. It also notes the 'id' context from cms_list_sounds, making the scope unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cms_get_sound_paragraph or cms_list_sounds). It implies the id must come from cms_list_sounds, but does not describe scenarios where this tool is preferred or not recommended.

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