acoustic_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the closed-form nature, per-kind fidelity bands (±10%, ±3 dB, exact), and the 'escalate_to' behavior. It stops short of stating cost/read-only traits or runtime limits, but accuracy and escalation behavior are clearly disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the '(NO solver)' constraint, then uses a pipe-delimited kind enumeration that earns its density. It is information-dense but well structured; the embedded formulas are borderline heavy but serve the agent.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies the full return shape ({kind, c_m_s, fidelity, band_pct, band_db, valid_range_ok, warnings, escalate_to} plus per-kind payloads), covers all four modes, and gives escalation routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the mode-specific inputs (lx/ly/lz_mm, neck_area_mm2, neck_length_mm, cavity_volume_mm3, frequency_hz, surface_density_kg_m2, duct_width_mm/duct_diameter_mm, c_m_s, t_ambient_c). The n_modes parameter is only implied via 'the lowest n_modes', so it is not fully specified, keeping this below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Closed-form acoustics screen') and immediately disambiguates the scope with '(NO solver)', then enumerates the exact 'kind' modes each with its formula. An agent can tell this apart from the Elmer FEM solve 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?

Names the alternative (the Elmer `acoustic_fem_submit` solve) and gives an explicit triggering condition: 'escalate ... when the margin is within ~2× the band.' Each kind's required inputs and validity envelope are stated, leaving little to inference.

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