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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful bounds (8 channels, 4096 samples/channel, bounded signal processing) and the invariant-validation behavior, but says nothing about failure handling or what a rejected invariant implies. It adds some value without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Four compact labeled sentences (Problem / Input / Result / Limits) with the problem statement front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the terse labels are slightly telegraphic rather than flowing prose.

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 needn't be described, and the description does cover the operation, its inputs and its limits. However, for a 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the opaque envelope (schema_version, idempotency_key, max_total_price) leaves a real gap an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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, so the description carries full burden. It names payload contents ('channels, rotor, rules') which partially maps to the freeform 'request' object, but the mandatory envelope parameters schema_version, idempotency_key, and max_total_price are not explained anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rotate these two coordinated complex channels with the supplied rotor and validate caller invariants', plus a result statement. This tells an agent exactly what the operation does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related wave_* siblings like wave_apply_verified_phase_correction_v1 or wave_transport_polarization_frame_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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The 'Problem:'/'Limits:' framing reads as a spec rather than invocation routing, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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