get_marker_ndb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the conditional return shape — bandwidth in Hz is only meaningful 'when on', while the on/off state and N value are always reported. That is real behavioral context about what the caller gets back. It stops short of stating what happens for a disabled or out-of-range marker index.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the return contents enumerated after the colon. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics — and it does, naming all three output pieces and their units. Given only two fully-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the only real remaining gap is error/disabled-marker behavior.

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%, with the marker range (1–10) and the instrument default already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the domain meaning of the 'N' concept (dB below the marker) but nothing additional about the two parameters themselves.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Read a marker's N-dB bandwidth measurement' — and enumerates what the read yields: on/off state, the N value (dB below the marker), and the bandwidth in Hz. This is distinguishable from the other marker getters (get_marker, get_ad_marker, get_emi_marker) by naming the exact measurement type, though it never explicitly names a sibling it excludes.

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 implied rather than stated: 'Read' contrasts implicitly with set_marker_ndb, and the phrase 'a marker's N-dB bandwidth measurement' scopes it to that one measurement. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. marker must be enabled or a measurement active), and no routing to alternatives for other marker data.

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