Monopole Sphere

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals that the computation is exact and solver-free, provides the governing formulas, explains the radiation efficiency behavior as ka changes, and lists the complete return payload. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation metadata.

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 but front-loaded, with the core purpose and differentiator in the first sentence. The formulas and output enumeration are genuinely useful, though the full return-field list adds length and could have been trimmed without losing key semantics.

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?

Since there is no output schema, enumerating the return fields is valuable and helps an agent understand expected results. The description covers physical assumptions, defaults, and the validation relationship with the BEM solver, but it does not define what valid_range_ok checks or how null r_m is handled, which are minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining a_m as sphere radius, u_amp as uniform surface normal velocity, freq_hz as frequency, r_m as range, and rho/c as air defaults at 20°C. It stops short of giving explicit units for u_amp, rho, and c, though the formulas and air-property defaults make these reasonably inferable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it computes exact pulsating monopole sphere radiated power and far-field pressure. It explicitly says 'NO solver' and distinguishes itself as the closed-form twin of `acoustic_radiation_submit`, making it easy to tell apart from related siblings.

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 explicitly names the alternative BEM solver tool `acoustic_radiation_submit` and states it is 'gated against' this analytic solution. It further says a BEM Neumann velocity solve must reproduce W and |p(r)|, clearly indicating when this tool should be used as the exact reference instead of the numerical solver.

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