calculate_rt60_reverb_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses the two formulations used, that results are reported across octave bands, that decay is compared against a preset target, and that the tool goes further by computing required additional absorber area. It does not describe the shape of the result or units, but for a pure side-effect-free calculation this is solid disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core computation before the evaluation and remediation outputs. Every clause carries information and there is no filler or 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?

For a nine-parameter physics calculation with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what is computed and what the two result components are (per-band decay vs. target, and additional absorption needed). It stops short of describing the result structure or units, which is the main remaining gap given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including enums and defaults; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, naming the usage presets and the absorption-area concept, but does not explain how material selections map to absorption coefficients or how existing_absorbers_m2 affects the calculation.

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 precise verb+resource ('Calculates reverberation decay time (RT60) across octave bands') and adds the specific methodology (Sabine and Norris-Eyring), which cleanly separates it from siblings like calculate_room_modes or calculate_schroeder_frequency. An agent can identify exactly what this tool computes 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is clearly for evaluating a room's decay time against a listening-destination target, and the four presets hint at intended scenarios. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the three sibling acoustic calculators, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that room dimensions and materials must be known first).

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