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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it enumerates the checks, the triage severity categories, the return structure, and the input format. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'diagnostic' strongly implies a non-mutating analysis.

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 longer than average but well-structured with numbered sub-checks, bullet points, and a short example. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists between 'Produces a prioritized triage report' and the later return summary, but the structure keeps it scannable.

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?

For a complex batch tool with an output schema, the description covers the input parameters, the per-stem analysis pipeline, the severity classification, and the result shape. It does not need to detail every return field because an output schema exists, and the provided example gives a concrete preview.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains filenames as either a JSON array or comma-separated list of WAV filenames, and genre as an optional profile. This adds meaningful type and usage context beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Run full diagnostic on multiple stems in one call', listing the three sub-analyses performed. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_problems, analyze_phase, and compare_to_profile by framing it as their batch combination.

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 makes clear this is for multi-stem diagnostics, mentions that phase analysis applies only to stereo files, and notes genre comparison is optional. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of calling individual analysis tools', but the context is adequately conveyed.

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