v2_dfs_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond that: the 30-minute vacate behavior after radar detection and the significance of configured != actual. It stops short of describing the return shape or what a siteId omission does.

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, each adding distinct information, with the core comparison front-loaded. Slightly dense but no filler to cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what the check returns (e.g., per-radio channel pairs or a flagged list), and it should clarify the undocumented siteId. It explains the domain semantics well but leaves the callable mechanics under-specified.

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 single parameter siteId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions siteId, its optionality (0 required), or what scope an omitted siteId produces. The schema name alone has to carry all meaning.

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 action on a specific resource: comparing each 5 GHz radio's configured channel against its actual operating channel, plus flagging DFS-channel radios and the 5600-5650 MHz weather-radar sub-band. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like v2_channel_util and v2_radar_audit, which cover utilization and audit trails rather than an in-the-act configured-vs-actual comparison.

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 a diagnostic purpose (detecting a radar event 'caught in the act') but never states when to prefer this tool over v2_radar_audit, v2_channel_util, or v2_interference_audit, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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