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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic read-only lookup behavior ('returns typical gain values'), but does not mention output format, units, or error handling for invalid antenna types, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 description covers the core purpose but lacks details about return structure, units, and behavior when antenna_type is omitted, despite these being partially present in the schema. No output schema adds extra burden to explain return values.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema (antenna type, empty for all), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns typical gain values for various antenna types, using a specific verb ('Gibt ... zurück') and a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on calculations, callsigns, and band plans.

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 when antenna gain values are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like calculate_eirp that might also involve gain.

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