goertzel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether the result is complex or magnitude, how the bin index maps to frequency, or any numerical/precision behavior. For a pure computation the stakes are low, but the disclosure gap is real.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is repeated and nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 two-parameter, fully-documented pure function this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should state what the return value represents (complex bin, magnitude, power). That omission leaves the agent guessing about the result.

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 100% (both 'samples' and 'bin' are documented in-schema, including the 0 to N-1 range), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, units, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb (Compute) and resource (a single DFT frequency bin) and attributes it to the named Goertzel algorithm. The phrase 'single DFT frequency bin' implicitly contrasts with the full-transform sibling fft_transform, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use Goertzel versus fft_transform or any other transform tool. An agent must already know that Goertzel is preferable for a small number of target bins and FFT for the full spectrum; the description provides none of that routing information.

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