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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the real-time 1-minute nature, the nominal 50 Hz reference, and the significance of frequency deviation as a balance indicator. It also mentions the ACT/SUB/NRE quality flag, providing insight into data quality. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds explanatory context about why frequency matters. Every clause adds value, and it avoids redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by dropping the explanatory sentence, but the context is useful for an agent deciding whether this metric is relevant.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the data source, units, nominal value, and interpretive meaning. It does not explain the return format or how the quality flag is represented, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (max_lookback_slots), and the schema description fully explains its purpose. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details about the parameter. Per calibration, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the Georgian power system's electrical frequency in hertz, specifying the data source (JSC Georgian State Electrosystem 1-minute export). It's specific about the resource and measurement, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gse_grid_now or gse_grid_at, which might also provide frequency or related grid data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions for selection, nor does it point to sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related queries (e.g., gse_grid_now for overall grid status). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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