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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the equal-temperament computation model, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about precision, edge cases (octave bounds), or return format beyond what the output schema carries.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted words. The sibling pointer is compact and clearly secondary.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to establish what is computed and how. Equal temperament is stated, which is the key domain fact; minor gaps remain around precision and octave-bound behavior.

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%, so all three parameters (note enum, octave range, tuning_reference default 440Hz) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general tuning-model framing, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (calculate the frequency of a musical note) and adds the tuning model (equal temperament), which is genuinely useful specificity. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling calculate_* tools beyond a link to a bundle.

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 only routing guidance is 'See list_bundles for related musique calculators,' which is a browse hint, not a when-to-use/when-not statement. There is no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other music/audio calculators.

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