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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's own contribution is the wellness/non-medical framing plus a hint that the output is a frequency suggestion (e.g. 528 Hz). It does not say how many suggestions come back or whether both inputs can be combined, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then examples, then scope. Two sentences, no filler. The parenthetical enum examples lightly overlap with the schema but help an agent recognize intent quickly.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter lookup with 100% schema coverage and complete annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only shortfall is not indicating the shape of the returned suggestion (single frequency vs. a list with labels), and no output schema exists to cover that.

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 100% and both parameters are fully enumerated, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds modest value by naming representative goal values and indicating that a chakra is an alternative way to query, rather than explaining anything the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb ('Suggest') plus resource ('Solfeggio and tuning frequencies') with concrete examples (528 Hz, 432 Hz) and the two input lenses named (goal, chakra). It is immediately distinguishable from the astrology/tarot/numerology siblings, though it does not explicitly state that distinction.

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?

Clear usage context: it is for a listening or meditation goal, or for a chakra, and it is framed as 'for relaxation and reflection; not medical advice'. It gives a scope boundary but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool routing, which is a minor gap given no sibling competes for this intent.

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