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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does communicate the key behavior of using real terrain rather than simple coverage assumptions. However, it does not disclose output format, result ordering, or assumptions such as which transmitter classes are included by default.

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 with no filler; the core mechanism and question answered are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and the second sentence usefully frames the value proposition.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out the return shape, the role of full_power_only, and how this differs from sibling tools like media_whats_on or media_station_readiness. It is a strong pitch but not a complete calling contract.

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 description adds conceptual meaning for location and terrain, but it does not explain full_power_only, which also lacks a schema description. With only 50% schema description coverage, the missing full_power_only semantics and implicit coordinate/query handling are material gaps.

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 opening sentence names the exact query and method: which television transmitters reach a given latitude/longitude, graded by real terrain. It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic listings services, but it does not explicitly differentiate among the sibling media_* tools by name.

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 gives a clear use case: answer 'what can I actually watch from here' for physical over-the-air reception. The contrast with listings services signals when this tool is relevant versus a listing-oriented query, though it stops short of naming a concrete alternative or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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