EMC Regulations MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'List' but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, or behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or return format. The frequency range filtering context is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral disclosure.

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 efficiently conveys core purpose and optional filtering. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the main action. Every element serves a purpose: listing action, resource scope, and filtering capability.

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?

For a simple listing tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what the return contains (band numbers, frequencies, etc.) or typical use cases to be more complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning FR1/FR2 categories in natural language, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource 'all 5G NR bands' with specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nr_band_lookup' by emphasizing comprehensive listing rather than individual lookup, and from 'lte_bands_list' by specifying 5G NR technology.

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 clear context for when to use optional filtering ('optionally filtered by frequency range'), mentioning FR1 and FR2 categories. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives like 'nr_band_lookup' for individual band queries.

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