Scan a frequency range

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals an important state-changing side effect: the radio is left tuned to the last step and may need re-tuning. It also adds a performance tradeoff about sample rate versus scan speed and resolution, which is useful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core operation and use case come first, followed by the side-effect caveat and a performance tradeoff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: what it reports, how to use it, the re-tuning side effect, and the speed/resolution tradeoff. It does not mention interaction with sibling tools like sdr_tune or sdr_spectrum, but the description is otherwise sufficient 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?

The description contributes useful meaning around sample rate and scan speed, and 'across a range' maps to start_hz/stop_hz. However, with only 43% schema coverage, it does not compensate for all parameters; max_results and threshold_db selection are left to the schema titles and property descriptions.

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 states a specific operation: step the LO across a range and report signals found, strongest first. The use case 'discover what is receivable' with an FM example makes the tool's intent unambiguous and distinguishes it from tuning, capture, or status siblings.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool: to discover what signals are receivable in a range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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