pcb_calc_microstrip_impedance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the IPC-2141 formula standard but does not disclose the output units (ohms), return value format, or any limitations/assumptions of the formula. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information.

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 calculator with fully described parameters, the description is mostly adequate but lacks details about the output unit and any applicable range restrictions. The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned impedance value represents.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The mention of IPC-2141 formulas implies the parameters map to formula inputs, but this is already evident from the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Calculate' with a clear resource 'microstrip trace impedance' and specifies the formula standard 'IPC-2141', which differentiates it from sibling tools like stripline or differential impedance calculators.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for microstrip trace impedance calculations, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like stripline or differential impedance tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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