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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral context: endpoint parity with POST /api/radar/performance, the fallback rule that MDS is inherited from a prior link budget, and the fact that RCS/target range/system loss are user assumptions disclosed on the result. It stops short of describing the return payload or numeric-edge behavior.

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 the compute purpose, then two short sentences carrying the fallback and assumption-disclosure rules. Dense parenthetical enumerations but each clause maps to a real capability; no filler 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?

With 16 optional parameters, no output schema, and a complex physics domain, the description covers purpose, chaining, fallback inputs, and how results are labelled. It does not explain what happens when no parameters are supplied (all optional) or summarize the result shape, which is the remaining gap.

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 the parameter docs are already unusually rich (units, defaults, W-vs-dBm preference, assumption flags), so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema content (dBi gain entry, assumption disclosure) without adding syntax or precedence detail the schema lacks.

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 ('Compute') and resource ('radar performance') and then enumerates the exact outputs: monostatic range equation quantities (received power, SNR vs range, max detection range, integration gain) and pulsed-waveform relations (duty cycle, unambiguous range/velocity, range resolution, blind speeds). This is far more specific than siblings like run_link_budget or design_rf_chain, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the note that the detection floor is 'reused from a prior link budget's MDS when not given' hints this tool chains downstream of run_link_budget, but it never states when to choose this tool over run_link_budget or run_compliance_analysis. No explicit when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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