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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds transparency by clarifying default behavior (e.g., 'Omit to list every non-deleted item in scope' and 'Omit to list across all categories'), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 concise, but it contains slight redundancy with the 'Guidance' line repeating the core filtering idea. It is still compact and front-loaded with the primary action, so minor redundancy does not detract much.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers all relevant aspects by naming each filter type and referencing the schema for details. It does not describe return format, but that is not required without an output schema, and the filter semantics are complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear explanations for each (e.g., 'Optional sound category ids returned by cms_list_cms_sections'). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond summarizing these filters, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists CMS sound items, which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cms_list_videos or cms_get_sound by naming the resource type, and the reference to cms_list_cms_sections for category ids further clarifies scope.

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?

The description implies usage for listing sound items with optional filters, and the reference to category ids from cms_list_cms_sections provides a practical hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use cms_get_sound vs. cms_list_sounds), though the context of sibling tools makes this largely inferable.

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