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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Berechnet' indicates a calculation, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not disclose the output format, the use of physical constants, or clarify what 'optional Drahtlängen' actually means in terms of computation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is concise, but the optional 'Drahtlängen' part is ambiguous and could be clearer, slightly reducing the structural quality.

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 no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what the return value is (e.g., wavelength in meters). It does not specify output units or explain how the optional wire lengths are calculated. The ambiguous phrasing also leaves the user guessing about the full scope, making the description incomplete for a calculator tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema offers; it only vaguely references wire lengths, which is not clearly tied to the velocity_factor parameter.

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 wavelength for a given frequency, distinguishing it from sibling calculation tools like calculate_cable_loss or calculate_eirp. However, the phrase 'optional Drahtlängen für Antennen' introduces ambiguity about whether it also calculates physical wire lengths, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: it should be used when converting frequency to wavelength. No explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or which alternative tools might be better for other calculation needs, such as cable loss or power conversion.

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