ask_about_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: English-speech-only validation, refusal of recordings longer than the reasoning budget, a 25s default wait, and async job-id return with an anti-polling instruction. It omits what a failure/refusal looks like to the caller and whether the answer text is the sole return value.

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?

Seven short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then operand details, then the async flow instruction. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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 6 params, no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers the input semantics and the async continuation protocol via get_job_status. The main residual gap is the response shape and refusal/error surface, which an agent must discover at runtime.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: start/end are 'in seconds, for the part you want', wait_seconds defaults to 25, show_reasoning prepends model reasoning, and path is implicitly clarified as file or YouTube link. The accepted path format and question wording are left to inference.

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: answering a question about 'one audio file or one YouTube link', with an explicit cardinality limit. It is clearly distinct from transcribe/translate/identify_language siblings, which produce transcripts or labels rather than answers.

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 routing: pass start/end for a sub-segment, and on timeout 'call get_job_status' with the explicit rule 'Do not poll in a loop'. It does not say when to prefer transcribe instead of asking a question, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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