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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds bounded-processing limits (8 channels, 1024 samples) which is useful, but it says nothing about the job-submission/cost behavior implied by the max_total_price and idempotency_key parameters.

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?

Clean Problem/Input/Result/Limits structure with no wasted words and the purpose front-loaded. Efficient for its size, though the terse bullets substitute brevity for detail.

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, and the limits add context. However, with nested request objects, 0% schema description coverage, and cost/idempotency parameters unexplained, the description is only partially complete for a job-submission tool.

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% across 4 required parameters. The description only gestures at 'JSON with sample rate hz, channels' inside the request payload and never explains the required schema_version, idempotency_key, or max_total_price fields, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 (Convert/Extract) and resource (coordinated complex capture → versioned Wave-Intelligence feature vector), so the core operation is identifiable. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as wave_convert_capture_to_spectrum_v1, and 'Wave-Intelligence feature vector' is jargon-heavy, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish the action type.

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 implies when the tool applies (converting a complex capture to a feature vector), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives against the many sibling wave_* tools are given. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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