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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It enumerates the computed outputs (a useful stand-in for the missing output schema) but never states that the tool is a pure, side-effect-free calculation, nor any assumptions or model limitations (e.g. which formulas/sources are used). Mutation risk is low for a calculator, but the disclosure is thin.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the inputs (external caps, stray capacitance) and then lists the resulting quantities. No filler, though the run-on enumeration of four outputs makes it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 10-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema calculator, the description usefully covers the return values and the input concept. However it omits usage context, assumptions, and the fact that all parameters are optional with sensible defaults — gaps an agent would otherwise have to discover from the 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%, with per-parameter units, ranges and even default-change notes in the schema itself, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only gestures at C1, C2 and stray capacitance conceptually and adds no syntax or modeling detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (算出) and enumerates the concrete quantities produced: actual load capacitance CL, frequency offset in ppm, oscillation gain margin, drive power, and the cap values matching the spec CL. This is clearly distinguishable from generic EE calculators, though it never names any sibling tool (crosstalk, impedance, etc.) to sharpen the boundary.

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 says what is computed but nothing about when to reach for this tool versus the sibling calculators, nor what prerequisites (e.g. knowing the crystal's spec CL or gm) are needed. An agent must infer the scenario from the name alone.

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