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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention the formula, edge cases, or how parameters interact (e.g., the A4=440Hz default is only in the schema). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states purpose, and the second provides a cross-reference. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool is simple and has a full input schema and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain the return value (frequency in Hz) or the equal temperament formula, which could help the agent understand the output. Still, for a straightforward calculator, it meets minimum needs.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, only referencing a related bundle tool. Baseline 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 calculates the frequency of a musical note using equal temperament tuning. It specifies the verb (calculate), resource (frequency of musical note), and method (equal temperament), making it unambiguous and distinct from the numerous sibling tools.

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 provides minimal usage guidance by referencing 'list_bundles' for related calculators but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not detailed.

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