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

Annotations declare it is idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, and not read-only (consistent with a paid 'buyer-job' tool that charges max_total_price). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: bounded signal processing only, exactly 2 channels, and a 1024 samples/channel cap, which tells the agent the operating envelope.

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?

Uses a tight Problem/Input/Result/Limits layout that front-loads the operation and then supplies the constraints. Every clause carries information; it is only slightly under-structured for the wrapper parameters.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers the core input fields, result nature, and hard limits. However, for a job-based tool that charges a fixed price, it omits any explanation of idempotency_key or max_total_price semantics, which an agent invoking it ought to understand.

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 real inputs are hidden inside a free-form 'request' object, so the schema explains almost nothing. The description compensates by naming the request contents (sample rate hz, channels, reference channel id, candidate channel id, rules), but it says nothing about schema_version, idempotency_key, or the meaning of max_total_price, leaving the wrapper params opaque.

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 ('Compare') and resource ('these two bounded waveforms against the supplied alignment and numeric rules'), plus the result ('waveform differences and caller-rule results'). This differentiates it from wave_compare_pipeline_responses_v1 by scoping to two bounded waveform captures, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 'Problem:' framing describes what the tool addresses, which implies its use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like wave_compare_pipeline_responses_v1 or wave_validate_reconstruction_quality_v1. An agent must infer selection from the description alone.

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