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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is supplemental. It adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: the operation is bounded signal processing, capped at 4 channels and 1024 samples/channel, and it returns both a fitted equalizer and pilot-fit evidence. Missing are details on failure/auth behavior for what is a compute-style job.

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 is front-loaded and dense, with zero filler sentences. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

For a bounded computation tool with an output schema already present, the description supplies the problem statement, required payload keys, expected result, and numeric limits. Only the semantics of the three housekeeping parameters remain unexplained.

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 opaque (an untyped `request` object plus three fixed housekeeping fields), so the description has to carry the load. It partially does by enumerating the payload keys (input channels, output channels, received, desired, pilot mask), but it never explains schema_version, idempotency_key, or max_total_price, leaving real gaps.

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 names a specific verb and algorithm-resource pair ('Fit a bounded quaternion NLMS equalizer') plus the exact input domain ('received and desired pilot capture'), so an agent can distinguish it from generic fit tools like wave_fit_coupled_channel_model_v1 without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative it should be preferred over.

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 'Limits' line gives hard constraints (bounded signal processing, 4 channels, 1024 samples/channel), which is useful, but there is no statement of when to choose this over sibling tools such as wave_fit_coupled_channel_model_v1 or wave_optimize_processing_pipeline_v1, and no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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