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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool computes resistor values and is used in RF signal chains. It does not detail any side effects, constraints (e.g., valid attenuation range), or computational behavior beyond the basic calculation. This is adequate 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 composed of 4 concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides input details, and ends with a sibling comparison. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema (context indicates true), so return values are covered there. The description covers inputs, topology, usage context (RF), and comparison with Pi attenuator. For a simple calculation tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 both parameters described. The description adds meaning by explaining the roles of the three resistors (series R1,R3 and shunt R2) in the Tee topology, relating the parameters to the physical design. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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's purpose: 'Design a Tee-topology resistive attenuator pad.' It specifies the computation of three resistor values for a symmetrical T-pad network, given attenuation and impedance. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'attenuator_pi' for Pi-pad topology.

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 provides clear usage context: it computes resistor values for Tee attenuators, maintaining impedance match. It mentions comparing with attenuator_pi for alternative topologies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list exclusion criteria, missing some guidance.

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