search_space_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that returned URLs are directly playable and should be surfaced verbatim, which is useful behavior, but it omits source coverage, failure behavior, and any rate/permission constraints.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the structure is marred by a dangling '例:' header with no example following it, and the Args block is a Python-docstring artifact rather than prose tuned for an agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description does most of the work: it conveys purpose, all three parameters, valid values, and the shape of the return (playable URLs). Lacking only source/reliability detail.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: query gets concrete examples (juno, saturn, sputnik, launch, apollo), limit's max of 10 is added beyond the schema default of 3, and the kind values are enumerated with meaning ('auto'=both, 'podcast', 'sound_effect'). Only the accepted query syntax remains loosely defined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('宇宙関連の音声を検索') and the return type (playable audio URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_space_images and search_space_videos by resource type, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 closing instruction '回答時はこのリンクをそのまま提示してください' tells the agent how to present results, and the kind values hint at podcast vs sound-effect selection. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_space_images/videos or any prerequisities/exclusions.

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