Impedance / admittance / reflection-coefficient converter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond structured data: the 'exactly ONE of' input constraint, that vswr/return_loss_db require an optional gamma_angle_deg, and that supplying a frequency additionally returns series/parallel R+L/C element values.

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-loads what the tool converts, then immediately states the input constraint, then the frequency-dependent output, then three illustrative queries. No filler sentences; every clause adds selection or invocation value.

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?

For a 10-parameter, no-output-schema converter, the description adequately covers inputs, the one-of rule, and the shape of what is returned (VSWR, return loss, mismatch loss, delivered power, Q, and L/C elements with frequency). Minor gap: it does not clarify units/format for the returned summary or how the language parameter affects output.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining the mutual-exclusivity rule across the five input quantities and how vswr and return_loss_db combine with gamma_angle_deg, which the per-parameter schema descriptions only hint at.

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 (convert) and resource (RF impedance/admittance/reflection-coefficient quantities), and enumerates exactly which quantities are produced. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like design_l_match or parse_touchstone purely from the description.

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 clear context ('Convert one RF quantity into all the others') plus concrete invocation examples such as 'what is the VSWR of 75 Ω on 50 Ω?'. It states the one-of input rule, which effectively tells the agent when the tool applies, but it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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