get_frequency_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions data decimation ('decimated to a readable number of points') and summary statistics, but does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or explicitly state read-only. This is reasonable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a useful pointer to an alternative. Every word contributes; no fluff 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?

The description covers what the tool does and when to use a sibling instead. The schema fully documents all parameters. Given there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated on summary statistics or curve format, but it is complete enough for a straightforward retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about log-spacing and decimation, which relates to maxPoints, but doesn't provide per-parameter syntax beyond the schema. It doesn't need to compensate for missing coverage.

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 retrieves a measurement's frequency response as a log-spaced, decimated curve plus summary statistics. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool analyze_response by directing interpretation tasks there.

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?

It explicitly says 'For interpretation (peaks/nulls/band balance) prefer analyze_response,' providing a clear when-not-to-use and naming the alternative. This gives the agent practical guidance for tool selection.

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