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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety/idempotency is covered. The description usefully adds operating limits (bounded signal processing, 8 channels, 4096 samples/channel), but omits that this appears to be a paid/bounded-cost job (max_total_price) and says nothing about auth or failure behavior.

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?

It is short and labeled (Problem/Input/Result/Limits) but redundant — 'validated pipeline and execution trace' is repeated in both the Problem and Result lines, and the labeled format pads rather than front-loads the key constraint.

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 described, but for a 4-required-param nested-object tool at 0% schema coverage the description leaves critical fields (idempotency_key, max_total_price, schema_version) unexplained and mismatches its own param list to the real schema.

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 all four top-level parameters are required, yet the description mentions only 'fixture' and 'maximum round trip rmse', which do not correspond to the required schema fields (schema_version, request, idempotency_key, max_total_price). The required idempotency_key and the monetary max_total_price const are never explained.

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+resource (compile a curated processing recipe) and names the outputs (validated pipeline and execution trace), which is more than the title alone. It does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as wave_optimize_processing_pipeline_v1 or wave_verify_wave_pipeline_v1, so an agent cannot easily tell which to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or prerequisites. With ~30 sibling wave_* tools, the absence of any selection criteria is a real gap.

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