search_space_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The return format (content and structuredContent) is mentioned, but behavioral details beyond that are absent.

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 well-structured, using a header line, parameter explanation, and a bullet-like example list. It is concise, with no redundant fluff, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: parameters, expected return format, and examples. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or empty-result behavior, but these do not critically hinder usage.

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 has no parameter descriptions, but the tool description fully covers all three parameters: query (with examples), limit (default and max), and kind (with all values and meanings). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states it searches space-related audio and returns playable URLs, distinguishing it from sibling image/video search tools. The verb '検索し' and resource '音声' are specific.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use each 'kind' value (sound_effect for short sounds, podcast for long talks) with concrete query examples. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like search_space_videos, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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