fcc_part_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly disclose that the tool is non-destructive or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. It provides some useful context about the returned data.

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 a single clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the parts and services efficiently. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more compact by grouping services.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the input (part numbers) and output (band allocations, power limits, key rules for listed services). It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 100%, with the parameter 'part' described as 'FCC Part number' and an enum of valid values. The description adds value by mapping each part number to specific services (e.g., Part 22 for cellular, Part 95 for GMRS/FRS), which helps the agent understand the meaning of the parameter beyond just the number.

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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and clearly identifies the resource (FCC Parts 22, 24, 27, 90, 95, 96). It also lists what the tool returns (band allocations, power limits, key rules) and for which services, making it distinct from siblings that focus on single parts or other aspects.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. While it lists the covered parts, it does not mention when to choose this consolidated lookup over sibling tools like fcc_part15_limit or fcc_cbrs_rules. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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