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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Deterministically rank,' which tells the agent the ordering is stable, but says nothing about result shape, scoring basis, or filter failure behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a moderate contribution.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

An 8-parameter tool with an output schema but zero schema description coverage needs more than one sentence. The description omits parameter meanings, the filter/surface semantics, and any note that this is a read-only catalog search, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently without guessing at the filters.

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%, so the burden falls on the description, yet it only gestures at 'natural-language task' (query) and 'bounded filters' without explaining limit, surface enum values and default, category, input_format, maximum_price (with its unusual 6-decimal pattern), maximum_duration_ms, or required_artifact_media_type.

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?

States a specific verb ('rank') and resource ('WaveEngine capabilities') plus the input modality (natural-language task). However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling list_wave_capabilities, leaving the agent to infer which of the two to call.

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 phrase 'for a natural-language task and bounded filters' hints at the intended input shape, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., vs list_wave_capabilities or get_wave_capability).

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