pcb_get_cispr25_limit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'look up' without detailing the return format (e.g., units, dBµV/m vs dBµV), error handling for unsupported frequencies, or reliance on defaults (e.g., class 3, category radiated). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic lookup action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With a simple 3-parameter tool and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core lookup function. However, it lacks important contextual details such as what the returned limit represents (units), how missing or out-of-range inputs are handled, and how defaults (class 3, radiated) apply. It is minimally viable but not fully 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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'frequency' and 'class' but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., allowed ranges, enums). It does not clarify parameter relationships or provide examples, so it earns the baseline score.

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's function: 'Look up CISPR 25 emission limit for a specific frequency and class.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and identifies the exact resource (CISPR 25 emission limit) with relevant parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_iso11452_level or pcb_lookup_limit_live.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention other standards (ISO 11452) or live limit lookup tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied by the tool name and standard reference, but there is no explicit usage instruction.

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