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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the 7 problem types, the filename parameter constraints (exports dir or absolute path), and the output format (severity, value, recommendation). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with a numbered list and example, but slightly verbose. Front-loaded purpose, but could be trimmed by a sentence or two. Still efficient and clear.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but referenced), the description provides example output and covers input constraints. All necessary information for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the filename parameter: 'WAV file in exports dir, or absolute path.' This adds crucial context beyond the schema's type/required.

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 clearly states it detects 7 specific technical audio problems (clipping, DC offset, hum, sibilance, mud, harshness, resonances), which distinguishes it from other analysis tools like detect_bpm or analyze_mix. The verb 'detect' and resource 'technical audio problems' are specific.

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 usage for checking audio quality issues and provides an example, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., detect_frequency_masking) or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough.

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