recommend_frequency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns recommended frequencies and links, but does not elaborate on whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The behavior is clear at a basic level but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior by stating it returns recommended frequencies and direct generation links. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the links or frequencies, which a small gap but not critical for this tool's complexity.

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%, as the 'useCase' parameter has a fully described enum. The description mentions 'specific use case' but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool provides recommended frequencies for a specific use case and includes direct generation links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tone_url and get_sweep_tool, which are likely for generating tones directly rather than providing recommendations.

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 usage for a specific use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The enum of use cases gives context, but there is no explicit guidance on tool selection.

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