v2_channel_util

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the 30-55 point natural variance and the warning that a single reading or short baseline is unreliable. It does not cover permissions or output shape, but the annotations remove most of the burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output before the usage advice. The phrasing is slightly editorial ('will let you claim any result you like') but each sentence carries actionable content.

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 3-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return metrics (mean/median/min/max per channel) and the measurement protocol. The only real omission is clarifying the siteId parameter and the odd fact that no parameter is required.

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 only 67%, with siteId undocumented in both places; samples and intervalSec carry their defaults in the schema. The description says nothing about sampling count, interval, or which site the samples belong to, so it does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Sample 2.4/5 GHz channel utilisation over time') plus what is returned (mean/median/min/max per channel). It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like v2_rf_health, v2_interference_audit, or v2_rf_planning, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 a clear usage condition: run BEFORE and AFTER any RF change. It explains why (band variability) but offers no explicit when-not rules and does not route to an alternative tool for related RF questions.

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