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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Check' hints at a read-only diagnostic and the metric list adds focus, but the description does not say what the call returns, whether it mutates anything, or what context is required, leaving the behavior contract unclear.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the density of unexplained jargon makes it slightly less clear than it could be.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must make the tool fully callable in context. It does not explain the return result, usage conditions, or relevant alternatives, leaving significant gaps for an agent, despite the low parameter complexity.

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 the schema already documents window and work_id at a basic level. The tool description adds domain context but does not explicitly explain how window or work_id are used in the frequency-domain analysis, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 names a concrete analytical action—a frequency-domain stability check—and lists the specific quantities it examines (peak interval, hook entropy, flat segment), so it is much more informative than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly state the return value or contrast itself with siblings such as redline_audit, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to invoke this tool versus related tools like redline_audit or get_emergence_proof. The wording only implies a use case (checking rhythm stability) and gives no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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