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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds genuinely new information — a 5-credit cost and synchronous rendering that 'usually returns immediately'. It does not explain what happens on the non-immediate path (task retrieval via get_task/wait_for_task), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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, no waste, with the core capability and hard input limit front-loaded before cost and rendering behavior.

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, it covers cost, input limit, and rough return behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It could be stronger by pointing to get_task/wait_for_task for the case where the result does not return immediately, and by documenting the two numeric parameters.

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 50%, and the description explains only the prompt (already documented in the schema). duration_seconds and prompt_influence have no description anywhere and are not mentioned, and the idempotency_key semantics in the schema go unremarked in the description.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Generate a sound effect from a text prompt') and pins down the input limit, so it is clearly not generate_music or generate_speech. It never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives cost and synchronous behavior, which helps an agent decide to call it, but never says when to prefer generate_music or generate_speech over it, nor when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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