band_guidance

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is experimental, region-aware, informational only, and that move_to_watering_hole sets the dial without transmitting. This covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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, front-loading the purpose and then listing operations succinctly. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the three operations and their parameters. It could be more complete by mentioning the return format, but overall it provides sufficient context for an informational tool.

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 0%, but the description explains each operation's parameters (e.g., lookup uses frequency_hz and optional mode, watering_hole uses mode and optional band). It adds meaning beyond parameter names, such as 'what the band plan says at a frequency' and 'preferred calling frequency'.

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 provides advisory band guidance for QSY help, listing three specific operations (lookup, watering_hole, move_to_watering_hole). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (band plan). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like frequency or rig.

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 mentions 'informational / QSY help only' and that move_to_watering_hole does not transmit, implying read-only use. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide contraindications.

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