Analyze a ladder / matching circuit

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the full analysis result set, that the sweep is optional, that bandwidth is computed only for a VSWR limit, and that tolerance analysis is deterministic corner-based ('Monte-Carlo-free'), which is a meaningful behavioral distinction. It does not discuss failure modes or how it handles malformed element chains.

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 what the tool returns before the supported-element list, and both sentences carry substantive content. The long element enumeration ('inductor, capacitor, resistor... coupled inductors') largely duplicates the schema's oneOf branches and could be trimmed without information loss.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does so thoroughly: per-node impedance/Γ/VSWR, input impedance with return and mismatch loss, optional S11/VSWR sweep, matched bandwidth, and tolerance corners. Combined with 100% schema coverage for the 7 inputs, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% with 7 params, so the schema already documents every parameter including tolerance_pct, load forms, and element types. The description adds only marginal meaning (it re-lists the supported element families and notes ±tolerance_pct semantics), which the oneOf branches already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (analyze) and resource (cascaded RF circuit, load → components → source) and enumerates the concrete outputs: node impedances, Γ, VSWR, input impedance, return/mismatch loss, optional sweep, bandwidth, and tolerance corners. It is clearly distinguishable from the design_* siblings (which synthesize networks) because this tool only evaluates a given circuit.

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?

Gives explicit scenarios: 'verify a matching network, check an antenna tuner, or answer what impedance does the source see?'. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never names a sibling alternative (e.g. design_l_match or tline_input_impedance) or states when a different tool is preferable, so it stops short of the top score.

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