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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the cost (5 credits), a detail absent from annotations. However it says nothing about whether generation is synchronous or must be polled via the check_generation sibling, which is material for a non-idempotent generation call.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and cost both front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it makes and what it costs, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits return shape and whether a follow-up poll (check_generation) is required, leaving a meaningful gap for a non-idempotent, credit-consuming operation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it; baseline is 3. The description's examples of prompt content (coin pickup, sword hit, footstep) do add flavor about what a good prompt looks like, but no length or formatting constraints are given.

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+resource ("Generate a short sound effect") and reinforces scope with concrete examples (coin pickup, sword hit, footstep). The word "short" implicitly separates it from generate_music and generate_vfx, though neither sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the examples suggest the kind of input expected and "short" hints at the length limit, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-generate_music/generate_vfx guidance or any precondition for calling it.

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