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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, and not read-only. The description adds concrete operational limits ('Bounded signal processing only; 8 channels; 4096 samples/channel'), which is genuinely useful. It omits the job-submission/commercial nature implied by the required max_total_price='0.005000' and idempotency_key, so the added context is partial.

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?

Labeled Problem/Input/Result/Limits structure is compact and front-loaded, with every line carrying content. The Problem framing is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 re-explained, and limits plus inputs are covered. However, for a job-submitting tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description never clarifies the submission/retrieval model or pricing, leaving 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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It names nested request fields (sample rate hz, channel, normalization, rules) but gives no units, formats, allowed values, or meaning for the required top-level idempotency_key, schema_version, and max_total_price. Partial compensation for a total coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Accept or reject this bounded capture against the caller's supplied spectral criteria.' An agent can tell this evaluates spectral rules against a capture. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbor validators like wave_validate_reconstruction_quality_v1 or wave_compare_waveform_captures_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?

The description says what goes in and what comes out but never states when to prefer this over the other wave_* validation/compare tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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