Parse & summarize a Touchstone (.s1p / .s2p) file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the accepted format dialects (MA/DB/RI) and frequency-unit agnosticism, plus what the returned summary synthesizes. It omits auth/permission or error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Effectively one long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core verb+resource before enumerating outputs, and every clause (formats, port-specific metrics, noise parameters) carries information. Dense yet economical; a slightly lighter enumeration would read better but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly assumes the burden of describing returns and does so comprehensively, covering both 1-port and 2-port outputs plus noise parameters. It leaves minor gaps on invalid-input/error handling and on how path and content interact, so not a full 5, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents language, max_rows, touchstone_path and touchstone_content including their defaults and path-vs-content tradeoff. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the 1-port/2-port scope implied by the summary contents, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource: reads a Touchstone v1 S-parameter file and summarizes it. It explicitly enumerates what the summary contains (port count, reference impedance, frequency range, per-frequency table, stability, noise parameters), making it trivially distinguishable from the design/analysis siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Clear context is given: it is for files from a VNA, simulator or datasheet, and the description notes it handles MA/DB/RI formats and any frequency unit. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is offered, but no sibling competes for this job, so the context is sufficient without an exclusion.

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