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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral bounds not present in the schema ('bounded signal processing only; 8 channels; 4096 samples/channel') and says the result is 'measurements and tolerance checks', but it never mentions the paid job dispatch behavior implied by the required max_total_price field and readOnlyHint=false.

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 each section earns its place with no filler. The only blemish is the truncated 'maximum rms....' which reads as an unfinished edit rather than a deliberate omission.

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-value detail is not required, and the description does cover purpose, limits, and result type. However, for a nested-object tool with 4 required envelope parameters at 0% schema coverage, the absence of selection guidance against many similar wave_* siblings and any note on the job/pricing envelope leaves meaningful gaps.

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 inner 'request' object is fully opaque (additionalProperties only), so the description carries the burden. It names several payload fields ('reference, observation, maximum absolute drift radians, maximum rms') but trails off with '....' and says nothing about schema_version, idempotency_key, or max_total_price, leaving the envelope parameters 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('measure phase drift') and scopes it ('in this bounded complex observation against the supplied reference and tolerances'), which separates it from sibling wave_* tools that transform, reconstruct, or validate rather than measure. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 mention of alternatives, despite ~30 sibling tools including wave_apply_verified_phase_correction_v1 and wave_validate_spectral_criteria_v1 that an agent could easily confuse with this one. The 'Problem/Input/Result/Limits' framing describes the tool but never routes the caller.

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