band_openings

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists output components (SNR, reliability, SFI, solar elevation) and the hourly breakdown. No hidden side effects are mentioned, but the description is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the key question, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It provides a useful summary of output fields. However, it could mention the purpose of the 'source' parameter and any required antenna or propagation data prerequisites. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 75%, covering three required parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters. The optional 'source' parameter lacks a description in both schema and tool description, slightly reducing clarity. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high but incomplete coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource combination: 'When does a specific band open between two grid squares?' It distinguishes from siblings like band_summary and path_analysis by focusing on hour-by-hour propagation for a specific grid pair and band.

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 for checking band openings between grids, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or contexts where other tools (e.g., path_analysis) might be more appropriate.

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