sound_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Read-only." merely repeats them. It does add genuinely useful non-annotation context: the data snapshot date (2026-10-11) and the truncation convention ("names longer than its list is wide end in …"), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing.

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 purpose and category list are front-loaded, which is good, but the sentence about levels feeling like prototypes and the eight-example list in parentheses (picked up, bought, refused, hit...) is decorative padding, and "Read-only." duplicates the annotation.

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, and the description only loosely indicates what comes back (names and ids, category); it mentions the result "shows both calls" in the graph, which hints at rendered snippet output but doesn't define fields. Pagination semantics for limit/offset are also absent, leaving meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains query (Chinese name words), queries (multiple searches, one list each) and category (one of the listed categories), which is real added meaning. Limit and offset — with a default of 40 and a cap of 300 — are left completely unexplained, so the gap is only partly compensated.

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?

Opens with a specific resource and its indexing keys ("The sound effects of the platform, by name and category") and enumerates the categories, so an agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It never explicitly names music_catalog or effect_catalog as the siblings it is not, which is the only thing keeping it off 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?

Gives concrete trigger context ("A level without sound feels like a prototype") plus the enumeration of events that should each get a sound, which tells an agent when this catalog is needed. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. when to prefer music_catalog or effect_catalog instead.

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