Loudness over time (for graphing / visualization)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ~3s analysis window, the EBU R128 standard, and that the waveform is downsampled, but says nothing about response size limits, error behavior, or processing cost. Partial disclosure for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load what is returned, then the applicability, then the input sources. No filler, though the last sentence partially duplicates what the schema already documents.

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 should fully explain the return shape. It names the arrays and time-base but omits units, ordering, or pairing format between samples and timestamps, leaving moderate gaps for an agent consuming the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the two audio-source options (public https URL or local path) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and the `waveformPoints` parameter is only hinted at via 'downsampled waveform peaks' without naming the default or unit.

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 specific resource (short-term LUFS samples with time-base, plus downsampled waveform peaks) and specifies the measurement standard and window (EBU R128, ~3s). It implicitly distinguishes itself from analyze_loudness by framing output as arrays for charts/meters rather than summary metrics, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives use-case context (loudness-over-time charts, level meters, waveform UIs) and lists both audio sources, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of analyze_loudness when...' routing and no when-not guidance. The consumer must infer that this tool is for time-series data versus summary statistics.

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