fccdb

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

The description reveals the output format (Markdown) but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially addresses behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that efficiently packs key information (full data, call sign, contents, Markdown). No waste, but could be slightly more structured.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the main contents and return format. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output, though more detail about return structure would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'call_sign'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Per rules, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns full data for a single FCC license by call sign, listing contents and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like search (search multiple) and tower_detail (different resource).

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 implies use when needing comprehensive data for a specific call sign, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use. Context signals provide sibling names which assist differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the HTML response includes an SVG elevation chart while the Markdown response does not, and lists what the Markdown response includes (endpoints, length, frequency). This is valuable beyond a simple 'get metadata' statement.

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 purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, identifiers, and response differences. It could note that it returns only one path, but that's clear from context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that the USI is a per-license integer and path_number is within that license, slightly enriching the schema but not adding significant new meaning.

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 clearly states it provides metadata for a single microwave path on a license, using specific identifiers (ULS USI and path number). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on path-level detail rather than license or tower info.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like license_detail or tower_detail. It assumes the user knows they need a specific path, but offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns up to 50 hits, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, safe, or any side effects. It lacks detail on behavior beyond the return limit.

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, 27 words, front-loaded with purpose then usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage, but does not describe the return format or what each hit contains. Given the simplicity, it is moderately complete but missing some context.

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 50% with only 'q' described as 'Search query'. The description adds context that the search is across FCC call signs and entity names, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond implying a constraint on return count. It adds marginal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs free-text search across specific domains (FCC call signs and licensee entity names), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying they require exact identifiers.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when the user names a callsign or company but you don't know the exact identifier yet.' It does not name sibling tools explicitly but the context provides them.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown) and the scope of data returned, but omits behavioral details such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors (e.g., invalid ASR number). The description provides an overview but lacks depth.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and key data categories, then mentions the output format. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient for agent consumption.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what data is returned and the format. It could be enhanced by noting data freshness, performance characteristics, or error handling, but it is mostly sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema covers the single parameter (asr_number) with a description of its format, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'retrieves full data' and the resource 'antenna structure by ASR registration number', listing specific data categories (owner, location, height, licensees, microwave paths, proximity) and output format (Markdown). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like license_detail and path_profile by the comprehensive scope.

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 implies usage by providing an ASR registration number, and the single required parameter makes it clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when you need aggregated tower data vs. a specific license or path), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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