download_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a download, does not perform analysis, and returns a local file path. It could add more about file format, persistence, or failure behavior, but the core side effects and return value are clearly stated.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded and the return value completes the contract. Every word earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly complete: it tells the agent what to supply, what the tool does, and what it returns. Minor omissions such as audio format and whether the file persists are not critical for correct invocation.

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 100% and the url parameter is already described as 'YouTube URL to download.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, so it does not improve on the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download'), a clear resource ('audio from YouTube'), and explicitly states the negative scope ('without analysis'), which distinguishes it from likely sibling analyze_youtube. An agent can tell what the tool is for without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'without analysis' implies the tool is for raw audio retrieval rather than analysis, which gives some context, but it never names an alternative tool or states a condition such as 'use this when you need only the audio.' Usage guidance is largely left to inference.

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