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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the call is project-scoped, returns the project identity alongside the result, and reports midpoints with surrounding words. It omits any note on ordering, limits, or volume of silences returned.

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?

Two dense sentences with the project-scoping constraint front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical about start/end is compressed but readable; structure is appropriate for the content.

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 output schema, the description usefully describes what comes back (midpoints, surrounding words, project identity), and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain around result size/ordering and range inclusivity, but an agent can invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it defines min_seconds as a threshold and frames start/end as a SOURCE-seconds range. It leaves unit precision, inclusivity of the range, and default behavior unspecified, so not quite a 5.

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 and resource ('find silences of at least min_seconds') plus the returned artifacts (midpoints and surrounding words), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name the sibling cut_silences to differentiate the read-only find from the mutating cut, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative, even though cut_silences is an obvious sibling. The clause 'cut points should snap to these midpoints or word boundaries' implies a downstream use but leaves the choice between finding and cutting to inference.

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