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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing what is withheld and when: omitted bandwidthHz makes noise floor/MDS/sensitivity unavailable, omitted user_request labels results 'caller-asserted', a passed main_board_input_voltage is reported back as unused, and missing nfSideband produces an ambiguity warning. It also states the server will pick and disclose IF and LO side, which is exactly the kind of behavioural context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and a dense but justified enumeration of return values, which is necessary because there is no output schema. The second sentence delivers the usage rule immediately. The output list is long, but each item earns its place given the absence of a structured return contract.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema, all-optional compute tool, the description is close to complete: it covers what is produced, which parameters are the primary design path, and how missing inputs are handled. The one real gap is that it never positions the tool against its closest sibling, design_rf_chain.

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% and every parameter already carries a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The body text repeats the rfFrequencyHz vs stages[] distinction already present in the schema and adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (design/analyse) and resource (superheterodyne receiver), and enumerates the exact deliverables (frequency plan, cascaded NF, MDS, SFDR, ADC interface), so the tool's scope is unmistakable. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling design_rf_chain, which it only alludes to obliquely via 'the same label/argument design_rf_chain takes', so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule for the two main entry paths: 'Pass rfFrequencyHz to design one; pass stages[] only for a bench receiver the user described with their own numbers', reinforced by the schema's 'Do not hand-build this from memory'. It also explains the front_end_only architecture switch. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-design_rf_chain rule.

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