Acoustic Screen

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only annotation by revealing exact formulas, accuracy tolerances (±10 %, ±3 dB), sound-speed dependency, return fields, and the `escalate_to` signal. It also distinguishes exact vs approximate branches. No contradiction with 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 dense and information-rich, but delivered as one long pipe-separated block; the front-loaded 'NO solver' is helpful. It could benefit from clearer per-kind bullets or a summary sentence, but every clause adds necessary behavior.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no enum annotations, the description fully covers accepted kinds, required parameter combinations, return shape, and escalation route. An agent has enough to call it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and no enums, the description carries the full burden of documenting 14 parameters. It maps each `kind` to exactly the required params (e.g., `lx_mm`/`ly_mm`/`lz_mm` for cavity_modes, `neck_area_mm2`+`neck_length_mm`+`cavity_volume_mm3` for helmholtz) and explains `t_ambient_c` vs `c_m_s`. This is comprehensive compensation.

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 opens by declaring a specific function—closed-form acoustic screening—and explicitly says it is NOT a solver. It enumerates each `kind` with its formula and application, which cleanly distinguishes it from the solver sibling `acoustic_fem_submit` and other acoustics tools.

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?

It provides a clear decision rule: use this closed-form screen for estimates, and escalate to Elmer `acoustic_fem_submit` when margins are within ~2× the fidelity band. It does not enumerate comparisons to every acoustic sibling (e.g., `waveguide_cutoff`), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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