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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the operation is deterministic and preserves comparability warnings, which is useful context. It does not explain task/job lifecycle or how warnings surface, but with annotations present, the added behavioral detail earns a middle score. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the engine relationship is contained in one supporting sentence. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not state what the tool returns, whether it starts a job, how comparability warnings are delivered, or how to choose between this and the direct compare_waves sibling. The deterministic/warnings detail is helpful but not sufficient for reliable selection and 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 coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The bare identifiers projectId, tableId, fromWaveId, and toWaveId are left to inference. The description reiterates the notion of saved waves but does not define compatibility, which wave is from versus to, or the role of project/table. The low coverage means the description needed to compensate more.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare compatible saved survey waves.' It also connects itself to the compare_waves engine, which names the relevant sibling. It stops short of a 5 because 'task shortcut' is left undefined and 'compatible' is not elaborated, so the exact scope is slightly fuzzy.

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 implies the tool is for saved-wave comparisons but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use signals. The sibling compare_waves is named only as the underlying engine, not as an alternative with a different applicable case, so an agent cannot decide between the two tools from this description.

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