audio_check_delivery

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds that the fix is an ordered operation list 'simulated on this file' (fix.verified) and enumerates what cannot be fixed (clipping, unfixable noise floor, wrong length). It also notes each result cites sources and check dates. It does not clarify write behavior beyond the simulation hint or any cost/latency characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return shape, then spec list, then the cross-tool follow-up. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; only the parenthetical source/date note is marginal.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so well (verdict levels, per-criterion fields, fix/fix.verified, cannot_fix). For a read-only check tool this is close to complete, though the unexplained start/end parameters leave a gap.

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%, so the schema gives no parameter meaning, but the description compensates for `spec` by enumerating the valid spec values (apple_podcasts, spotify, youtube, ebu_r128, atsc_a85, acx_audiobook, game_sfx). However path, start, and end — the latter two presumably a time window — are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (check) and resource (a file against a delivery spec) and immediately characterizes the output shape (verdict, per-criterion entries, fix list). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like audio_analyze or audio_info, which don't target named delivery specs.

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?

Gives clear usage context: check a file against one of the named specs, use spec="list" to enumerate them, and after a denoise fix verify words with audio_transcribe. It never explicitly says when to prefer a sibling (e.g. audio_analyze) instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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