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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral context: requires PULSE_API_KEY, requires prior estimate, must confirm lawful basis, and returns a job_id for async polling. It also clarifies that one batch confirmation covers multiple tracks, which is critical for proper use. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying essential information: main action, prerequisite, API key requirement, user confirmation obligation, and return/poll behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema (returns job_id) and this complexity, the description covers the full workflow: prerequisites, legal compliance, return behavior, and the async polling pattern. It does not need to explain return values in detail because the output schema exists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the workflow dependency (job_estimate_id comes from estimate_cost), reinforces the 'public' nature of audio_url, and clarifies the legal confirmation requirement for attestation_confirmed. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Run audio analysis on a public audio URL.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking to estimate_cost (prerequisite) and get_job_status (result retrieval), making it unambiguous which step in the workflow this tool represents.

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 clearly states the prerequisite (estimate_cost must be called first) and the follow-up (poll get_job_status). It also provides guidance on batch confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for cost estimation or status polling), though the workflow context makes this implicitly clear.

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