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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and mostly succeeds: it reveals unit conversion (0.3048 m/ft), the output summary fields, the include=modes gating, the 200 Hz pile-up cap and rationale, and provenance.canonicalUrl. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the pure-calculation/no-side-effect nature, though that is strongly implied.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the detailed return-value semantics. A few clauses are dense, such as the parenthetical explanation of the 200 Hz pile-up cap, but each sentence contributes behavioral or provenance information rather than padding.

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 combination of a 100%-covered input schema, a rich output schema, and this description leaves little missing: units, required dimensions, optional include flag, frequency limits, refusal condition, and provenance are all covered. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to set parameters 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that dimensions are converted from feet, that include=modes is an omitted-by-default heavy block, and that maxFreq interacts with room volume to cause refusals that name a working maxFreq. It does not need to restate the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Solve the eigenmodes of a rectangular room,' and the body doubles down with the concrete /lab/room-modes/{w}x{l}x{h} mapping. It is unambiguous about what the tool computes, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly room-acoustics sibling roomShapeBand, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools or exclusion conditions. An agent can infer it is for room mode calculations, but the tool does not say when roomModes should be preferred over roomShapeBand or why include=modes might be avoided for large rooms.

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