pcb_lookup_limit_live

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns either a cached/fallback value with a 'pending_refresh' flag or a deferred next-action against mcp__emc-regulations__*. This reveals important runtime behavior (potential for deferred actions) beyond what the schema shows. It could go further by explaining the semantics of 'pending_refresh' or the deferred action structure, but it is substantially transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the dual return behavior. There is no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does by naming the two return modes and the 'pending_refresh' flag. It also hints at the deferred next-action pattern. However, it omits details like what happens when fallback is false and the sibling is unreachable, or what the deferred action's arguments are. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain how 'class_or_level' interacts with 'standard' or what 'fallback' does in detail. It relies on the schema, which is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Look up a regulatory limit from the emc-regulations sibling MCP.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_get_cispr25_limit, which target specific standards. The mention of the sibling MCP and return behavior further clarifies its unique role.

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 when to use the tool (whenever a regulatory limit is needed from emc-regulations) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like pcb_get_cispr25_limit or pcb_get_iso11452_level. It lacks clear 'use this instead of X when...' guidance, so it is only minimally viable.

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