fcc_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that is concise and front-loads the main action. It could benefit from a slight structure (e.g., separate listing of return items), but it is efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the description sufficiently covers the return types. Given sibling tools exist, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand when to use this tool. Without an output schema, the listing of return categories helps completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description of the fccId parameter with an example. The description adds value by confirming the parameter is for looking up a specific FCC ID, but does not go beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the action (Get full FCC certification details), the target resource (specific FCC ID), and lists what it returns (equipment info, test reports, grant conditions, compliance documents). This distinguishes it from sibling search_fcc which searches for IDs.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific FCC ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. search_fcc or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity.

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