Find openly-licensed audio

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

Annotations already communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safe search behavior is clear. The description adds useful context about the content types and source, but it does not disclose result shape, pagination, or license handling beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the resource and scope of the search.

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?

The tool's domain and purpose are clear, and the required query parameter lowers invocation risk. However, there is no explanation of what the response contains, what format results take, or what the intent parameter means, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 provides no guidance for query, count, intent, or license. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and defaults alone, which is a significant gap for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 is specific and actionable: it says the tool searches CC music, sound effects, and field recordings from Openverse's audio index. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_images tool and other non-search tools.

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 description makes it clear that this is the audio search tool, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when an alternative like find_images would be preferable; that exclusion is only implied by the sibling names.

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