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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation, and the description meaningfully adds cost (5 credits) and the synchronous return behavior with output_urls. That cost and timing disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, though failure/timeout handling is left to the idempotency_key schema text.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cost, then execution behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 paid, open-world generation tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description covers cost and the typical return but omits parameter tuning, credit-failure behavior, and any return-content detail. It is adequate to attempt a minimal call 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?

Schema coverage is only 25% across 4 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden but adds essentially nothing: duration_seconds, prompt_influence, and idempotency_key are never mentioned, and prompt is only implied by 'from a text prompt'. No guidance on ranges or how to tune the output is provided.

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 (generate) and resource (sound effect) from a text prompt, which cleanly separates it from generate_music, generate_speech, and generate_image among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest alternative, but the resource noun does the differentiation work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over generate_music or generate_speech, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The synchronous-render note hints at timing expectations but never tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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