Compare two tracks (A/B)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that both results are returned for comparison and that sources may be public https URLs or local file paths, but says nothing about pairing requirements, failure modes for mismatched formats, duration limits, or permissions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by compact scenario examples and an input-format note. The trailing fragment ('Audio source: ...') is slightly clipped but short and load-bearing.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and input forms adequately, and notes that both results are returned. It leaves ambiguous whether the A/B pairs are strictly required and how the pairing of url/path variants is enforced.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint beyond the schema: the URL must be a *public https* URL, whereas the schema only declares format=uri. The urlA/urlB vs pathA/pathB pairing is also hinted at.

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+resource ('Run loudness analysis on TWO sources') and makes the two-source/A-B scope explicit with named scenarios, which readily separates it from the single-source analyze_loudness sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling directly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 use contexts (master vs reference, before vs after a fix, two encoders, two cuts) that tell an agent when this tool is the right choice. There are no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of the single-source alternative.

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