engineering.lc_resonant_frequency

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real domain behavior - output is in Hz rather than angular frequency rad/s, and resistive-loss frequency shift is explicitly not modeled. That caveat is exactly the kind of condition an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences: what it computes with the formula first, then input/output units, then modeling assumptions. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and nothing is buried.

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 an output schema present, return formatting need not be explained; combined with unit and assumption disclosure, the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Minor omissions are edge-case behavior for invalid or non-positive input beyond the stated constraint.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it specifies units (henry for inductance, farad for capacitance), the accepted type (positive Decimal string), and the zero-exclusive bound. It stops short of stating precision or numeric range limits, which is the only remaining gap.

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 and resource and gives the exact formula f0=1/(2π√(LC)), so the agent knows precisely which quantity is computed. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rc_filter_cutoff or rlc_time_constant because those produce different outputs.

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 names the ideal-L/C assumption, which implicitly scopes when the result is valid, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. rc_filter_cutoff, second_order_response) or what to do when lossy components exist. Usage is implied by the formula rather than routed explicitly.

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