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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and is idempotent, but the description doesn't explain what happens to pipelines or fixtures, whether it mutates state, or what the tolerance checks entail. For a non-read-only tool, this is a significant gap. The 'Limits' portion mentions channel and sample bounds, which is helpful but not enough.

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 attempts a structured format (Problem/Input/Result/Limits) but the 'Input' section is truncated ('maximum absolute....') and overly terse. It's not excessively long, but the structure is not well-executed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, but the description omits critical context about the request format, the meaning of 'caller tolerances', and how to interpret tolerance checks. For a tool with 4 required parameters and nested objects, this is insufficient.

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%, and the description only vaguely references 'JSON with left pipeline, right pipeline, fixture, maximum rmse, maximum absolute...' without mapping to the actual parameters (schema_version, request, idempotency_key, max_total_price). The parameter names in the schema are not reflected in the description, leaving the agent to infer structure from nested objects.

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 verb+resource ('Compare these two supported Wave pipelines on the supplied fixture') which is reasonably clear. However, the added context about caller tolerances and the 'Problem/Input/Result/Limits' framing is a bit disjointed and doesn't clearly distinguish it from wave_compare_waveform_captures_v1 or wave_verify_wave_pipeline_v1, which sound similar.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wave_compare_waveform_captures_v1 or wave_verify_wave_pipeline_v1. The description mentions 'supported Wave pipelines' and 'caller tolerances' but doesn't specify the conditions under which an agent should select this tool.

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