Metadata for a single microwave path on a license. Identified by the ULS USI (per-license integer) and the path number within that license. The HTML page has an SVG elevation chart with terrain + line of sight + Fresnel zone; the Markdown response carries the endpoints, length, and frequency but not the chart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usi | Yes | ULS USI (license id) | |
| path_number | Yes | Path number within the license |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses response format differences (HTML vs Markdown) and what the Markdown response includes (endpoints, length, frequency, but not chart). It could mention permissions or limitations but is otherwise adequate.
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 that are clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more verbose than necessary but still concise.
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?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool returns and the response format distinction. It does not explain full response structure but that is acceptable.
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%, but the description adds valuable context: explaining that usi is a per-license integer and path_number is within that license, thus clarifying the identifier semantics beyond the schema descriptions.
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 returns metadata for a single microwave path on a license, distinguishing it from sibling tools license_detail, search, and tower_detail which handle licenses, generic searches, and towers respectively.
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 when needing path metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity: license by call sign, path by USI/path number, free-text search, and tower by ASR number. No functional overlap.
All names use snake_case with a consistent structure: noun_detail or noun_profile. 'search' is a single word but fits the pattern.
With four tools, the surface is well-scoped: a search tool to locate identifiers, then three detail tools for licenses, paths, and towers. No extraneous tools.
The set covers the core querying needs for FCC data: search, license details (including paths), and tower details. Lacks direct spatial or frequency-range search, but the free-text search suffices for most uses.