get_audio_clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the generated URL is only reachable from the same network as the clips server, and this tool returns a URL rather than inline data. This is useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then states the network caveat, then gives the routing instruction to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple URL-resolution tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, flags a critical network limitation, and points to the appropriate alternative when inline data is needed. No important guidance is missing for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both clip_name and detection_date in sufficient detail. The description does not add substantial semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('a detection's audio clip (.wav)'), and the output form ('full HTTP URL'), with the purpose of sharing or embedding. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_audio_clip_base64, so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool get_audio_clip_base64 and gives the exact condition for choosing it: when the audio data must be returned inline to the model. It also conveys a constraint on URL reachability, which helps an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate for a given context.

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