Constant-gain circles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return contents (centre in Γ and Z, radius, achievability flag, reference maximum MAG/MSG or G_S,max/G_L,max) and the ladder behavior when gains_db is omitted.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose, then type semantics, then return values, then the plotting hand-off. Every sentence carries information, though it is information-heavy enough that it borders on terse for a physics-domain tool.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned quantities (centre, radius, achievability, max gain reference). Combined with 80% schema coverage and the plotting hand-off, it is nearly complete; minor gaps remain around error/precondition behavior for the Touchstone path.

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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter detail. The description still enriches semantics by explaining what each 'type' enum value computes and the special meaning of gains_db for unilateral types plus its omission behavior, going beyond the schema's short field notes.

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+resource ('Constant-gain circles for amplifier design') and enumerates the four circle types ('available', 'operating', 'unilateral_source', 'unilateral_load') with their defining formulas, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like noise_circles and amplifier_stability.

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 routing for the 'unilateral_source'/'unilateral_load' types (S12≈0 designs) and the omit-gains_db case, and names the follow-up sibling ('Pass the circles to render_smith_chart'). It lacks explicit when-not guidance versus other matching tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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