frequency_to_band

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the frequency is not found (e.g., returns empty list or error), or any rate limits. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

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, compact sentence with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of band names? band IDs?) or behavior for unmatched frequencies. More detail would improve completeness.

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 JSON schema parameter 'frequency_mhz' having a description ('Frequency in MHz'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond restating 'given frequency'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 finds which LTE/NR bands contain a given frequency. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LTE/NR bands'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lte_band_lookup' or 'nr_band_lookup' which likely retrieve band details rather than performing a frequency-to-band mapping.

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 implies usage context (frequency-to-band lookup) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'lte_band_lookup', 'nr_band_lookup'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.

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