search_spectrum

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 states that results are 'spectrum allocations... joined to the source filing and applicant' but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling (e.g., empty results). The lack of explicit read-only or non-destructive assurance is a gap.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with an example and filter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return value ('allocations... joined to source filing and applicant') but lacks details on the structure, fields, or format of results. The example provides a hint but is not fully complete. For a search tool with 7 parameters, additional context about result ordering or limits would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Filters like 'agency', 'direction', 'polarization' are listed but without additional context on format or behavior. The description only reiterates the schema's information.

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's purpose: finding which entities hold a frequency band by searching spectrum allocations overlapping a given MHz range. It includes a concrete example ('who is allocated 11700-12200 MHz downlink?') and lists specific filters, making it distinct from sibling tools that deal with entities, filings, or other domains.

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 this tool (frequency band queries) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Siblings like search_entities or search_filings could be confused, but the description provides enough specificity to infer appropriate usage without formal exclusions.

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