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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Vergleicht' without explaining what the output looks like, whether it returns a table, list, or comparison metrics, or if it has side effects. This leaves a significant transparency gap for a read-only comparison 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. It is concise with no redundancy, efficiently conveying the essential purpose and conditions.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description is moderately sufficient. However, it lacks details about the return format or how comparisons are presented, leaving room for ambiguity. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (frequency_mhz and length_meters). The description merely restates these parameters in German ('Frequenz und Länge') without adding additional semantic details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Vergleicht' (compares) and identifies the resource 'Kabeltypen' (cable types) with clear conditions (frequency and length). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_cable_loss, which focuses on a single cable's loss, by explicitly stating it compares all available cable types.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose and implies when to use it (when comparing multiple cable types), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since it says 'alle verfügbaren Kabeltypen' (all available cable types), it's clear this is for comparative scenarios, yet no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance is given.

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