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

Annotations already declare this mutates (readOnlyHint=false) but is idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the bounded-processing limits and the fact that invariant checks are returned, which is useful context, but it says nothing about cost, authorization, or how the job is submitted.

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 tight, front-loaded, and easy to scan, with no filler sentences. It is slightly terse on the request payload, but nothing is wasted.

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 detailed, and the annotations carry the safety profile, but for a tool with 4 required parameters and 0% schema coverage on a nested free-form request, the description leaves the actual call shape underspecified. It is adequate but not 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% and all 4 top-level parameters are undocumented. The description names two request-payload fields ('mode', 'rotor') that are not documented anywhere in the schema, which is genuine compensation, but the required wrapper fields (schema_version, idempotency_key, max_total_price) are not explained and the request contents are only partially enumerated.

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 — transforming Jones vectors or channel operators between named SU(2) frames and verifying invariants — which is concrete and understandable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling wave_rotate_and_validate_two_channel_frame_v1, so an agent must open the schema to choose between them.

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 / Input / Result / Limits' framing supplies context but never states when to use this tool rather than a sibling, nor any exclusion. The Limits line gives constraints (4 channels, 1024 samples) but no routing guidance, so the agent must infer the right situation.

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