medical_emc_requirements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'returns emission limits and immunity levels' but provides no information about behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format.

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?

Single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. No unnecessary information, extremely concise.

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 has a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return of emission limits and immunity levels. However, it lacks detail on the format or structure of the output, which could help the agent use the results effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, only reinforcing that the environment relates to professional or home healthcare settings.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets IEC 60601-1-2 medical device EMC requirements, specifying emission limits and immunity levels for two environments. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'medical_immunity_levels', which may cause some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'medical_immunity_levels' or other standards tools. The agent receives no context about when this tool is appropriate or when it is not.

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