resonance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds value by explaining that Q is returned as null for boundary peaks without flanking crossings and warns about under-sampling causing inflated Q/bandwidth. 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?

Description is well-structured with purpose first, then usage notes and parameter tips. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the Q calculation formula, null case, and practical advice. With an output schema, return values need not be detailed here.

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 high (86% or more), so baseline is 3. Description adds extra context: explains min_prominence_db in detail and mentions min_separation_decades for merging duplicates, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it detects magnitude peaks in AC sweep and estimates Q factor and -3 dB bandwidth. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like bode_metrics and stability_metrics.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (RLC resonators, crystal oscillators, peaking amps) and when not to use (for filter characterization use bode_metrics; for stability margins use stability_metrics). Also provides parameter advice like min_prominence_db and sampling density.

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