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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the maximum of 20 hits, but it does not disclose the subscriber/auth requirement despite a required access_token parameter, nor does it explain result ordering, pagination, or read-only behavior.

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 only two fragments, and the leading 'PRO.' plus unexplained 'Diet' add ambiguity rather than useful structure. It is short but under-specified for a tool with a required auth token and multiple parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, three parameters, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description should do much more. It conveys only a rough result cap and leaves key context about authentication, result behavior, and sibling selection unaddressed.

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 33%, with just access_token documented in the schema. The description references keyword and a 20-hit cap, but it does not explain the limit parameter's range/default or how keyword matching works, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 implies a keyword search returning speech hits with a cap of 20, so the broad purpose is inferable. However, 'PRO' and 'Diet' are unexplained, and there is no explicit verb or clear differentiation from speech_search beyond the vague 'PRO' label.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of speech_search or speech_text. The 'PRO' label hints at a premium variant but does not state the conditions or alternatives that would select this tool.

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