get_frequency_counter

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the actual return contents (on/off state plus gate time, with seconds as the unit). Since no output schema exists, that return-shape detail is doing real work; only the absence of any note about error or unconfigured states keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero redundant or restated wording. Every clause contributes either the identity of the tool or the shape of its result.

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 one-parameter read tool with a complete annotation and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece: what the call returns, in lieu of an output schema. It leaves only minor gaps, such as behavior when the counter is off or the instrument unknown, which are unlikely to change an invocation decision.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, and the schema already fully documents it at 100% coverage, including the default-instrument fallback and the pointer to list_instruments. The description adds no additional meaning about instrument selection, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read the marker frequency counter') and then enumerates what is read back ('whether it is on and its gate time in seconds'). That is enough to separate it from the setter sibling set_frequency_counter, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read' and the readOnlyHint; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_frequency, get_marker, or the set_frequency_counter counterpart, and no prerequisites are given. For a simple paired getter that is survivable, but the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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