calculate_trace_impedance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by naming the equations and the solver behavior, but it never states that this is a pure side-effect-free computation, whether any external lookup occurs, or what the response contains; the core mutability/safety profile is left to inference.

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability and equation basis front-loaded followed by the design targets. No filler or restated title; every clause 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?

For a 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition omits what is actually returned. It also blurs whether it computes impedance from a given geometry or solves W/S from target_z, and with no annotations covering safety or side effects, some behavioral completeness is missing.

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 all six parameters including defaults and the mode enum. The description's impedance examples echo the schema's target_z description rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb (calculate) plus the exact resource (characteristic/differential impedance for PCB microstrip traces) and names the governing equations (IPC-2141/Wheeler). An agent can immediately distinguish this from synthesize_circuit, validate_netlist, or calculate_bom_cost.

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?

Gives concrete application context (50Ω RF, 90Ω USB, 120Ω RS485/CAN) and the two supported modes, so the agent knows the domain in which to reach for it. It does not, however, state any exclusions or explicitly compare against sibling tools.

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