v2_interference_audit

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 meaningful behavior beyond that: it describes which counters are sampled over a time window and discloses a privacy-relevant side effect (sends lat/lon/radius to a public ADS-B service). It does not discuss the result format or latency, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core value proposition. Some phrasing ('makes every other interference claim a guess') is promotional, but each sentence conveys a distinct capability. Slightly over-packed into one paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the underlying metrics that constitute the result, which compensates. However, for a 7-parameter tool it leaves the geolocation and band parameters undefined and omits when-to-use guidance, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 43%, and lat/lon/siteId/band carry no description in either place. The description adds context for the flight check (opt-in, external transmission) but does not clarify the geospatial parameters, band selection, or how siteId interacts with lat/lon. Baseline 3 given partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('interference detection' via 'the AP's own radio counters') and explicitly names the metrics it reads (interUtil, busyUtil, txUtil/rxUtil, retry/drop deltas). It draws a sharp line between WiFi-busy and non-WiFi emitters, distinguishing it from siblings like v2_channel_util and v2_radar_audit.

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 positions itself implicitly by claiming other interference claims are 'a guess', and flags the flight-correlation as opt-in. But it never states when to prefer this over v2_channel_util, v2_rf_health, or v2_radar_audit, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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