physics_get_acoustic_boundary_conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a zero-parameter static reference lookup the risk surface is small. It confirms the tool returns a reference of boundary condition types and properties, but does not say whether a model must be loaded, whether results are interface-dependent, or how the reference is structured.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core action. The trailing 'Returns: Acoustic boundary condition reference' largely restates the first sentence and could be folded in, but the description is far from bloated.

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 simple zero-param lookup tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never clarifies what the 'reference' actually contains (type names? property schemas? enum values?) or whether it applies only to Pressure Acoustics interfaces. An agent can invoke it correctly, but the payoff of the call is only vaguely predicted.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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: 'Get common Pressure Acoustics boundary feature types and properties,' which tells the agent this is a reference/lookup tool rather than a mutation tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like physics_configure_acoustic_boundary or physics_setup_acoustic_boundaries by being the read-only reference lookup, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 but not stated: an agent can infer this is a reference lookup to consult before configuring acoustic boundaries in a Pressure Acoustics interface. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against the parallel physics_get_pde_boundary_conditions sibling.

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