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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds hard bounds (8 channels, 1024 samples/channel) and the accept/reject decision behavior plus checksummed artifacts, but says nothing about failure modes, cost semantics, or what happens when rules are violated.

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 framing front-loads the gating purpose and scans quickly with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a mid-complexity tool.

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 no elaboration, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with nested request objects, 0% parameter coverage, and a const-bound max_total_price, the definition is only partially complete for correct invocation.

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 (schema_version, request, idempotency_key, max_total_price). The description hints at request contents (sample rate hz, channels, rules) but leaves three top-level parameters entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap at this complexity.

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+outcome (accept or reject a bounded signal capture against caller-supplied metric rules) and the resource being gated. It is distinguishable from siblings like wave_validate_spectral_criteria_v1 or wave_diagnose_multichannel_capture_v1, though it does not name a sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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 never states when to choose this gate over sibling validators, nor any preconditions. 'Limits: Bounded signal processing only' is a capability constraint, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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