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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (checking legality and returning the band) but does not disclose what happens when the frequency is not allowed (e.g., error vs. empty response), or whether any side effects occur. This is a notable gap for a validation tool.

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?

A single, well-structured German sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no superfluous words or repetition.

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 is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description provides enough for a basic understanding, but leaves unspecified the behavior for invalid frequencies and the exact return format, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without seeing output examples.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Frequenz als Zahl' and 'Einheit der Frequenz'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Prüft' (checks) with a clear resource: whether a frequency is allowed in amateur radio and returns the associated band. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_band_plan or list_all_bands, which focus on band plans rather than single-frequency validation.

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: you would call this when you have a specific frequency and want to know if it's permitted and which band it falls into. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_band_plan or list_all_bands, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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