emi_marker_search

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

The single annotation only says readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond it: the marker is moved, a search turns an off marker on (a side effect), the new frequency and level are returned, and results depend on the EMI peak criteria. It stops short of covering failure behavior when no qualifying peak is found.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core action and return value first, then the action glossary, then the constraint and the pointer to the criteria tool. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (new frequency and level), and it covers the key behavioral quirks (turning a marker on, peak criteria dependency). It does not address what happens when no peak satisfies the criteria, a minor gap for a small, three-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the range on marker, the action enum, and the instrument default are already documented. The description still earns credit by explaining what each enum value actually means semantically, which the schema's bare 'Which search to run' does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource — move an EMI marker via a peak search — and names the return payload (new frequency and level). It is clearly distinct from set_emi_marker or get_emi_marker, though it never explicitly names a sibling for differentiation, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Each action value is glossed (peak = highest, next = next highest, left/right = next peak to that side, minimum), which effectively tells the agent which action to pick for a given intent. It also states the prerequisite that peaks must satisfy the peak criteria, pointing at get_emi_peak_criteria. It lacks explicit exclusions such as when not to use this versus other marker tools.

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