car_geometric_delay_advisor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly frames the output as a geometry-only estimate rather than a measured result, and it warns that acoustic measurements take precedence. This makes side effects and accuracy expectations reasonably transparent, though it does not detail output units or coordinate-system assumptions.

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?

Two short sentences, both informative and front-loaded. The first states the core action and scope, and the second adds an important limitation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is sufficient for tool selection but leaves gaps for invocation: it never explains the output shape of the delay map, units of delay, or the meaning of geometry coordinates. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions matter, though the core purpose is still adequately 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It only hints that geometry matters ('geometry-only') and does not explain listener, speakers, or speedOfSoundMps semantics, units, or how they interact. An agent would have to rely on parameter names and schema structure alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and a clear resource ('geometry-only initial delay map for car speakers'). It also distinguishes itself from acoustic-measurement tools by noting that such measurements supersede this estimate, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clearly implies this is a preliminary, fallback tool to use when acoustic measurements are not yet available, since 'acoustic measurements supersede this estimate.' It does not name an explicit alternative sibling or state a hard when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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