get_tone_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (direct URL), the operational range (1-20000 Hz), and the external service (Online Tone Generator). This is sufficient for a simple, read-like operation and adds context beyond just the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the scope without any unnecessary words. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description fully explains its purpose and the key constraint (frequency range). The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further details.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'frequency' with min/max and an example. The description redundantly mentions the 1-20000 Hz range but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get', identifies the resource as 'a direct URL', and clarifies the scope as 'a specific audio frequency (1-20000 Hz)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sweep_tool (which likely produces a sweep) and recommend_frequency (which recommends instead of generating).

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 gives clear context: use this when you need a direct playable URL for a single tone, as opposed to a sweep or recommendation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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