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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds useful hard limits (bounded signal processing, 8 channels, 1024 samples/channel) that are not in the annotations, but says nothing about cost implications (max_total_price) or how the result is produced.

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 labeling is efficient and easy to scan, with no filler sentences. Front-loading is good, though the individual clauses are dense with undefined jargon.

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 are stated. But for a job submission with four required params, nested objects, and 0% schema coverage, the parameter mismatch and absence of usage guidance leave the agent under-equipped.

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 description must compensate. It claims the input is 'JSON with sample rate hz, channels', which does not match the required top-level fields (schema_version, request, idempotency_key, max_total_price) and leaves the schema_version const and max_total_price const entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'diagnose' and resource 'coordinated complex capture' are present, and it gestures at a distinguishing scope ('without inferring a physical cause'). However, 'bounded Wave-Intelligence degradation findings' is opaque jargon, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like wave_validate_reconstruction_quality_v1 or wave_measure_phase_drift_v1.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many wave_* siblings. The only guidance is the implicit constraint 'without inferring a physical cause', which is a scoping note rather than a routing rule.

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