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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the computed quantities and that the control law is 'inferred' rather than measured. However, it says nothing about whether all 8 octants are required for a valid result, what happens on partial or malformed octant arrays, or whether the operation is pure computation versus anything with side effects.

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?

A single dense sentence with the outputs and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is jargon-heavy but every clause contributes information about what is computed.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must carry the whole definition, and it covers what is computed but not the shape of the results, error conditions, or the assumptions behind the inferred control law. For a two-parameter analytic tool with fully documented inputs this is adequate but leaves real 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with types and nested field names. The description adds only the 'up to 8 octants' scope and the 600s default, which largely restate what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate where 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?

The description pairs the specific verb 'Compute' with three named outputs (first-harmonic Bode gain in dB, phase lag in deg, inferred load-balancer control law) and a bounded input domain (8 octants of a 600s latency chirp). This is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 only because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any alternative analysis path.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus anything else, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is the implicit domain (octant hit/latency data from a chirp), which an agent must infer from the object wording rather than read as guidance.

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