EMC Regulations MCP Server

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. It states the action but does not describe output format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does in a clear and structured manner, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return values or behavioral traits, which are important for a tool with zero annotation coverage. It meets basic needs but could be more complete by addressing output format or usage constraints.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not add unnecessary param details, earning a baseline score of 4 for not overcomplicating a parameterless tool.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) frequency bands per ITU Radio Regulations', specifying the exact scope and regulatory framework. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lte_bands_list' or 'nr_bands_list' by focusing on ISM bands rather than cellular technologies.

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 when ISM bands are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'frequency_to_band' or 'emc_standards_list'. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage inferred rather than clearly defined.

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