audio_dataset_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without downloading anything,' which signals a non-mutating operation, and lists the data returned. It does not mention error conditions or performance, but for a straightforward listing tool, this is sufficient context beyond the basic function.

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, information-dense sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then lists the specific return fields, and ends with the key behavioral caveat. No fluff or redundancy – every clause 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?

The description enumerates the exact output fields (DOI, institution, license, measurement metadata, pinned artifact size, checksum) and clarifies the non-downloading behavior. It lacks explicit mention of scope (e.g., global vs. workspace-specific) or ordering, but for a catalog listing tool, the essential details are present. This is nearly complete given the simplicity of the operation.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on the output content rather than parameters, and the empty schema already conveys that no arguments are needed.

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 'List' with a clear resource ('curated independent audio datasets') and enumerates the metadata fields (DOI, institution, license, etc.). It explicitly notes 'without downloading anything,' which distinguishes it from the sibling download tools (audio_dataset_download_plan/execute). This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 downloading anything' implies a read-only browsing use case, clearly setting context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like audio_dataset_download_plan or audio_artifact_validate, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent, so it falls short of a 5.

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