noise_floor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behaviors: it returns a PhysicalViolationError for thermodynamic limit violations, uses standard formulas (kTB, Friis), and provides default values. It could improve by mentioning computational complexity or precision limitations, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose explanation, usage guidelines, error behavior, and parameter documentation. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving usage guidelines earlier, but overall efficient.

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's complexity (multiple calculations, error conditions) and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It explains purpose, usage, behavior, and all parameters thoroughly. With an output schema present, it appropriately doesn't explain return values, focusing instead on what the tool does and how to use it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: bandwidth_hz (receiver bandwidth in Hz), temperature_k (system noise temperature with default 290K), stages (list with gain_db and noise_figure_db keys), and required_snr_db (required SNR for sensitivity). It adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates thermal noise power, cascaded noise figure, and receiver sensitivity with specific formulas (kTB, Friis formula). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like radar_range, rf_link_budget, and shannon_hartley by focusing on noise floor calculations rather than range, link budget, or channel capacity.

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 explicit bullet points for when to use this tool: determining thermal noise floor, cascading noise figures, calculating receiver sensitivity, and validating noise figure plausibility. This gives clear guidance on appropriate contexts and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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