pcb_get_iso11452_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('get') and names the returned parameters (field strength, BCI current), but does not disclose details about return format, units, validation of the 'level' parameter, or any side effects. For a simple query tool this is adequate but minimal.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It conveys the essential information without any wasted words.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and key outputs. It could mention units or return structure, but for a standards-parameter lookup this is sufficiently 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'level' is fully described as 'Test level (1-5, default 3)'. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves ISO 11452 immunity test level parameters, specifically field strength and BCI current. It uses a specific verb ('get') and names the exact standard (ISO 11452), distinguishing it from related standards like CISPR 25 (pcb_get_cispr25_limit).

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 needing ISO 11452 parameters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as pcb_get_cispr25_limit or pcb_analyze_immunity_margin. There is no clear exclusions or alternative guidance, only that it is a getter for this standard.

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