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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail: it calculates maximum daily safe exposure time using NIOSH's 3 dB exchange rate. This is sufficient, though it could mention any output format or precision limits.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: it opens with example queries, then provides technical details, and ends with a usage hint. Every sentence is informative and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, straightforward logic), the description covers input, calculation method, and refers to the sibling tool. With an output schema present, return values are likely documented elsewhere, so the description is complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the parameter (db) is already described. The description reinforces its meaning with examples like '85 dB(A)' and '100 dB → 15 min', but adds minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it answers questions like 'how long can I listen to 100 dB', clearly indicating its function. It also explains the NIOSH recommended exposure limit and exchange rate, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides concrete usage scenarios ('how long at a concert before hearing damage') and directs users to a sibling tool (lookup_sound_level) if they need the dB of a named sound first, offering clear alternatives.

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