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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is checksummed with declared normalization, and processing is bounded to 8 channels and 4096 samples per channel.

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 Problem/Input/Result/Limits structure front-loads the action and is easy to scan with no filler sentences. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic at points.

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 explained, and the limits section covers operational constraints. However, for a 4-param tool with nested objects and 0% schema coverage, two required wrapper parameters (idempotency_key, max_total_price) and their roles are left entirely to the 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 the schema is an opaque wrapper (arbitrary nested 'request' object plus schema_version const, idempotency_key, max_total_price), so the description must compensate. It names three meaningful payload fields (sample rate hz, channel, normalization) inside 'request', but says nothing about idempotency_key, max_total_price, or the schema_version const — only partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — converting a bounded complex capture into a checksummed spectral artifact — and names the salient output attributes (normalization, checksums). It reads clearly against spectral siblings like wave_validate_spectral_criteria, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from them by name.

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?

'Bounded signal processing only; 8 channels; 4096 samples/channel' gives boundary conditions that imply when the tool is applicable, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance is provided. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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