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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool measures (five dimensions), what it returns ('per-dimension comparison + actionable deltas'), and provides an example output. It also specifies WAV file types and path resolution ('exports dir or absolute path') for both parameters, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, bullet list of dimensions, parameter notes, and a code example. The motivational phrase 'This is how you learn how pros mix your genre' is slightly redundant but does not harm comprehension. Overall, it is appropriately sized for 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?

Given the moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function, inputs, and example return. It could mention prerequisites like matching file lengths or sample rates, but the dimension list and path details give enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, and it does. It dedicates a line to each parameter: 'filename: Your mix WAV (exports dir or absolute path)' and 'reference: Reference track WAV (exports dir or absolute path).' This clarifies file type, path conventions, and roles, fully covering the two required parameters. The example further illustrates usage.

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 'A/B compare your mix against a reference track across all dimensions' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates five concrete comparison dimensions (LUFS, spectral curve, stereo width, dynamic range, spectral centroid), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_mix or measure_lufs.

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 gives clear context for use: 'This is how you learn how pros mix your genre. Drop in a reference track you admire and see exactly what's different.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or contrast it with alternatives like compare_to_profile or match_to_reference, which are siblings with potentially overlapping purposes.

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