rf_link_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It explains the tool validates antenna gains against aperture limits, rejects physically impossible configurations, and returns specific error types (PhysicalViolationError). It also describes the dual output format (human-readable summary and machine-readable JSON). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects.

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 and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, then provides usage guidelines, return behavior, and detailed parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value, with no redundant or vague content.

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 of a 9-parameter RF calculation tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, behavioral characteristics (validation, error handling), return formats, and detailed parameter semantics. With an output schema present, it appropriately doesn't need to explain return values in detail.

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 providing detailed parameter documentation. Each of the 9 parameters is clearly explained with units, constraints (must be > 0 for frequency/distance), default values, and purpose (e.g., 'enables aperture check' for diameter parameters). This adds substantial 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'Calculate a complete RF link budget using the Friis transmission equation' and lists specific computations (FSPL, received power, antenna validation). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on RF link budget calculations rather than noise analysis, radar range, 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 usage guidelines with a bulleted list of four specific scenarios when to use this tool: estimating received signal strength, validating link budget achievability, checking antenna gain consistency, and computing free-space path loss. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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