SoundCloud

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior; the description adds otherwise unavailable behavior: per-call credit costs, free failures, cursor pagination, and free cached results via max_age_days. That is substantial beyond the structured 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?

Front-loads the dispatch rule, then lists resources compactly; the bullet list is scannable and almost every sentence carries operational information. No wasted filler.

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 six-parameter dispatcher with a nested params object and no output schema, the definition covers resource selection, credit and cache behavior, and pagination sufficiently for correct invocation. Remaining gaps like output shape and auth are minor and partly covered by annotations or omitted output schema.

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 the schema documents each argument; the description adds resource-specific expectations (artist/artist.tracks accept url or handle, track needs url) and ties cursor and max_age_days to pagination/caching semantics. It does not define types or allowed values, which is fine because the schema does.

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 identifies the platform and scope ("Data from SoundCloud: profiles, tracks") and enumerates three concrete resources, so an agent can see it is a SoundCloud data fetch tool rather than a generic search. It stops short of an explicit verb and relies on the platform name to separate it from sibling platform tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It explains the dispatch pattern (choose a resource, pass its parameters top-level, extras in params) and gives operational rules for credits, pagination, and caching. It does not state when to choose this tool over sibling platform tools or when not to use it, so alternatives are left implicit.

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