get_math_fft_peaks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the enablement prerequisite, the shape of the return (up to 15 rows of rank/frequency/amplitude with units, plus raw reply), and confirms the table is small enough to return inline. It stops short of stating failure behavior when the search is not enabled.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the prerequisite, then the return shape. Each sentence carries useful information, though the manual citation and unit caveat add mild verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still summarizes the row contents. Combined with the disclosed precondition, nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 0% for the single 'index' parameter and the description never explicitly defines it; the ':MATH<n>' notation only implicitly hints that index selects the math channel. That partial hint keeps it at baseline rather than lower, but the parameter meaning is not made unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (query) and resource (FFT peak search results table) and anchors it to the exact SCPI command (:MATH<n>:FFT:SEARch:RES?) with a manual reference. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like configure_search or get_search_config without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that the peak search must be enabled first and names the sibling and parameter to do so (configure_math fft_search_enable=True). This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention what happens if called before enabling.

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