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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, etc.) but the description adds important context: it is project-scoped, returns the project identity, measures specific audio attributes, and does not hear audio. It discloses that it is an analysis/ranking operation without claiming mutation. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches beyond them.

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 moderately long but information-dense. It is front-loaded with the project-scoping note and the core comparison purpose, then adds measurement details and usage advice. Every sentence contributes value; it is not overly verbose for the complexity.

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, but the description tells what the tool returns (project identity and ranking evidence) and what it measures. It also explains the post-selection workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though exact output format is unspecified.

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% (only project_id has a description), but the description compensates by explaining the purpose of 'ids' (candidates from search_sfx) and 'purpose' (named physical/editorial purpose for ranking). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail exact formats.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: compare multiple SFX candidates using actual waveform data. It specifies the exact resource (SFX candidates), the action (audition/compare), and the outcome (ranking against a purpose). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_sfx (searching) and fetch_sfx (fetching) by focusing on the audition/ranking step.

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 clear context on when to use: 'Compare multiple search_sfx candidates using their ACTUAL waveform before choosing.' It also advises what to do after (fetch and place the winner) and acknowledges the LM's limitation. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the intended usage is well implied.

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