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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully reinforces it with 'Published prices; nothing is bought' and adds context the annotations do not: a hand-checked set of 8 packs, an explicit return shape (price, eligible/conditional/not eligible, and licence points awaiting seller confirmation). It stops short of describing latency or freshness of pricing.

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-loaded on purpose and scope, then usage conditions, then output contract, in a single tight paragraph. The catalogue of sound types ('UI clicks and snaps, motion-graphics sounds, desert wind and train ambiences, and a kettle whistle') is somewhat redundant with the intent enum, costing a little density.

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 an 8-parameter, read-only comparison tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract and an explicit failure-mode instruction ('say so if none fits'), plus the scope ceiling. An agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 description coverage is 100%, including all enums and defaults, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning and a 3 is the baseline. The description echoes the licence factors that map to seats, ai_use, commercial_use, standalone_resale and pure_sfx_percent but adds no syntax, format or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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 (compare/check) and resource (prices and licence fit for named sound effect packs), enumerates the exact scope (8 packs, three vendors) and says what comes back. It is unmistakably distinct from compare_font_licenses and compare_email_verification_prices.

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 a clear trigger: 'Use this when the user wants sound effects for an app, game, video or interface and asks what a pack costs or whether its licence allows their use', with the decision factors (commercial work, seats, AI training, resale, proportion) spelled out. It also sets a when-not boundary ('covers only these packs, not whole sound libraries'), though it does not name a sibling tool to use instead.

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