FFT spectrum data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does more than most: it describes the response shape and explicitly warns that a commonly expected field (dominant band) is absent, which prevents downstream hallucination. It still omits cost/latency, auth requirements, and whether this is a non-destructive read, so it is not fully transparent.

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 with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what the payload contains) is front-loaded. The input-source sentence at the end duplicates the schema, but the overall length is proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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 the description compensates well by enumerating the return contents (paired arrays, seven bands) and one notable absence. Authorization, cost, and latency remain unstated for an annotation-free tool, but the largest gap, the response shape, is covered.

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%; both parameters already document the URL vs. local path choice, the exactly-one requirement, and the 4 MB inline / 150 MB signed-URL limits. The description only restates the source options, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 states exactly what the tool produces: frequency-domain magnitude data as paired frequency/magnitude arrays, plus energies in seven named bands. This clearly separates it from loudness- and timeseries-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative tool. The negative disclosure ('no dominant-band field') sharpens the identity further.

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?

'For spectrum-analyzer UIs and tonal-balance analysis' gives implied usage context but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules. Across nine sibling analysis tools it never says when get_spectrum is preferred over analyze_loudness or analyze_timeseries. The context is real but thin.

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