Audio Download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts beyond the annotations: the 1-credit cost per call and the async job-id return. It does not explain job lifecycle or how results are retrieved, leaving a moderate gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the cost signal. The leading 'Audio Download.' merely restates the title and is the only wasted text.

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 an 8-parameter async tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and the job-id result, which is reasonably complete. It omits the downstream step of resolving the job id via jobs/wait_for_job, which an agent needs to actually complete the workflow.

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%, so all eight parameters including webhook retry behavior and dot-notation fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Download audio from a URL') and adds a useful outcome ('receive a job id'), so the agent knows this is an async audio-fetch operation. It does not explicitly contrast with video_download, but the media type distinction is obvious from the name.

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 'receive a job id' phrasing implies asynchronous execution, but the description never says to poll with jobs or wait_for_job, nor does it state when to prefer this over video_download or media_metadata. Usage must be inferred from sibling names.

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