suno_download_url

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds 'browser-UA' which is ambiguous and doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, side effects, or whether the action is read-only. For a download operation, the description gives almost no behavioral insight beyond the action itself.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and several siblings. It is not bloated, but it omits critical details, so while concise, it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, file destinations, or how this tool differs from suno_download. An agent would need to inspect the schema or guess to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about url, hint, or destDir. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds zero semantic value over the schema. The malformed schema types ('single asset URL to download') are not reliable descriptions, so this falls to the description, which fails.

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 clear action (Download) and resource (single asset URL), with a hint about browser-UA. It is not a tautology and gives a basic sense of what the tool does, though the 'browser-UA' fragment is cryptic. It doesn't explicitly contrast with suno_download, but 'single' suggests this tool is scoped to one asset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings like suno_download, suno_tasks, or suno_generate. There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and no hints about selectability. The agent must infer usage from the name and the single sentence.

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