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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool plays a sound, implying an auditory output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires audio permissions, if it blocks execution, error handling, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about the sound's source, volume, duration, or system requirements. With no annotations to fill gaps, the description should provide more detail to ensure the agent understands how to invoke it effectively.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, reflecting that no additional information is required beyond the empty schema.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Plays a completion sound when called'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('Plays') and resource ('a completion sound'), but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'completion sound' or how it's played. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't specify appropriate contexts (e.g., after a task finishes), prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, this isn't a comparative issue, but the lack of any usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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