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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the nuance that these are 'actual' encoder values (not theoretical defaults) and lists the returned fields, but the field list largely duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the verb and resource front-loaded and the format constraint and returned fields trailing in order of importance. Nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with a published output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers what is being read and for which formats. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but its enum already constrains it to float32/pcm16. The description restates those two accepted values, which compensates for the missing prose, yet adds no new meaning (no format defaults, output differences, or validation notes).

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource ('Hyperwave's actual WAV encoder layout') scoped to two formats, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like calculate_frame_size or list_export_targets, which caps it below 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?

Usage is only implied: 'actual ... encoder layout' suggests inspecting real encoder output rather than computing it, which quietly separates it from calculate_frame_size. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it stays at minimum viable.

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