audio_speech_transmission_screening

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The tool is described as a calculation, which implies a read-only, pure function with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any assumptions, edge cases, or error behavior. It does convey that it is a computation, which is a basic behavioral trait, but it omits any detail about what the output represents or how it might vary. For a benign calculation tool, a 3 is fair; it is not misleading but leaves behavioral aspects underspecified.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb. It avoids fluff and gets to the point. It is efficiently written, though it could potentially include a bit more context without becoming verbose. Given that it's one sentence and clear, it earns a 4. It's not overly terse to the point of being unhelpful, but it could be slightly more informative without hurting conciseness.

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 specialized nature of the tool, the lack of an output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand what results to expect or how to interpret them. It does not explain what the calculated screen means, what range it might take, or how the redundancy penalty affects the result. The description provides the calculation concept but misses the practical context an agent needs to use the tool effectively. With only one sentence and no additional detail, it merits a 2. It is not completely useless, but it leaves substantial gaps.

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 for documenting the parameters. It mentions 'modulation transfer factors and importance weights', which map loosely to the bands array elements, but it does not explain the meaning of centerFrequencyHz, nor does it mention the redundancyPenalty parameter at all. The description gives the conceptual basis but fails to clarify each parameter's role or units. Since it omits one parameter entirely and offers only partial semantics for others, it scores a 2. It adds some meaning but is far from comprehensive.

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 the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'speech-transmission screen', and gives the derivation basis (IEC-60268-16-inspired). It also mentions the key inputs (modulation transfer factors and importance weights), which makes the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any siblings, but among many audio analysis tools this stands out as the only one about speech transmission screening, so it's distinguishable enough. A 5 would require naming a sibling alternative, which it doesn't do, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to similar tools like audio_transfer_quality or audio_room_metrics. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. This is a clear gap for a tool with many siblings, so it scores a 2. It is not misleading, but lacks any directional guidance.

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