dipole_resonance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key traits: no solver, banded fidelity (~±3%), the shortening factor model, input exclusivity, and the list of return fields. It does not describe error modes or the meaning of `warnings` and `escalate_to`, but overall it is more transparent than most.

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 the core purpose and input requirement, then supplies necessary technical context without filler. It is dense but every sentence earns its place; minor length could be trimmed, but nothing is extraneous.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is thorough: it covers inputs, the closed-form model, banded nature, and lists return fields. It could be slightly more complete by explaining the return fields' types or `warnings`/`escalate_to` semantics, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all three parameters: exactly one of `length_mm` or `freq_ghz`, the meaning and default of `shortening`, and the relationship L = k·λ and f_r = k·c/L.

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 computation: thin centre-fed half-wave dipole first resonance using a closed-form model. It also names the sibling it is gated against (`em_fullwave_submit`), so an agent can distinguish it from other EM tools.

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?

Specifies to give exactly one of `length_mm` or `freq_ghz`, and explains that an FDTD S11 sweep must place its first resonance inside the returned band. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the primary alternative in a decision rule.

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