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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds input path expectations (WAV in exports dir or absolute path) and output structure (severity + recommendation), which are useful behavioral details beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear summary, and the detailed bullet list is substantive rather than redundant. It's somewhat long but each item adds useful information about the detected problems, and the example is helpful.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input format, output shape, and the problem categories. It could mention limitations such as file size or duration handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for straightforward invocation.

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?

The schema provides no description for the single 'filename' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining what filename means ('WAV file in exports dir, or absolute path') and gives a concrete example call, making the parameter semantics clear.

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 explicitly states the tool detects technical audio problems and enumerates 7 specific issue types (clipping, DC offset, hum, sibilance, mud, harshness, resonances), giving a clear, specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_spectrum or measure_lufs, which focus on different aspects.

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 when technical mix problems are suspected, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative analysis tools. There are no exclusion criteria or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the tool's appropriate context.

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