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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool assumes ideal line-of-sight with no obstacles, reflections, or atmospheric absorption, and also computes RF wavelength. This provides clear behavioral context for the agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague statements.

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 the simple nature of the tool, the schema covers parameters, output schema exists, and the description explains the ideal conditions and connection to link_budget. It is complete for an agent to understand usage and expectations.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (distance in km, frequency in MHz, exclusiveMinimum: 0). The description adds marginal value by restating that frequency is carrier frequency and distance is between Tx and Rx, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 calculates free-space path loss in dB using the ITU-R P.525 standard, given frequency in MHz and distance in km. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it feeds into link_budget for full end-to-end analysis.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to estimate baseline path loss before adding fade margins, antenna gains, or environmental corrections.' It also mentions it feeds into link_budget, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or limitations beyond ideal conditions.

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