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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the monetary cost ('4 credits') and the non-speech scope, but it omits other important traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, storage side effects, and whether generation is synchronous or asynchronous.

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 two compact clauses with no wasted words. The primary purpose and the key exclusion are front-loaded, and the cost is placed efficiently at the end.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or result behavior, but it does not state what is returned (e.g., audio URL, file, or inline data) or whether generated audio is stored. It covers purpose, exclusion, and cost, but leaves return semantics and side effects unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents prompt, output_format, duration_seconds, and prompt_influence in detail. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), specific resources ('sound effects and short music tracks'), and input type ('text prompts'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the speech-specific sibling by saying 'NOT speech: use tts for spoken voice.'

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 directly tells the agent when not to use this tool ('NOT speech') and names the correct alternative ('use tts for spoken voice'). For the relevant audio-generation scenario, the when-to-use case is clear from the first phrase.

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