calculate_high_speed_skin_depth_loss

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, read-only computation, so the description only needs to add analysis semantics — and it does, by disclosing that results follow IPC-4562B/IPC-2141A and that the tool goes beyond numeric output to recommend a foil profile for eye-margin recovery. It does not describe output units or the shape of the recommendation, which keeps it below 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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the computed quantities, then qualifying standards, then frequency/application scope, then the recommendation behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 7-parameter, no-required-argument calculation with no output schema, the description supplies standards basis, frequency validity range, target applications, and the fact that a recommendation is returned. What is missing is any hint about output fields/units or how the max_acceptable_ksr threshold affects the recommendation.

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 coverage is 100% with defaults and units documented per field, so the description correctly leans on the schema. However, it names 'ED, VLP, or HVLP/RTF' profiles while the foil_type schema lists only 'standard_ed', 'vlp', 'hvlp' — RTF is not an accepted value, a minor mismatch that could mislead an agent choosing a profile.

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?

Names a specific verb (Calculate) and three distinct outputs (skin effect depth, Hammerstad Ksr, conductor attenuation), plus a secondary output (foil profile recommendation). This is clearly separable from siblings such as calculate_trace_impedance or calculate_pcb_stackup_impedance.

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?

Scope is well bounded: 1GHz–50GHz signals with named application contexts (PCIe 5.0/6.0, USB4, 112G PAM4), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, but the applicability window is explicit.

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