compare_results

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the additive value here is the 'no interpolation' exact-match rule, the 1..20 dataset ceiling, and the domain caveat that AC samples are peak voltages while DC uses RMS. It does not mention cost, ordering of returned comparisons, or error behavior when a frequency is absent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The second sentence is very jargon-dense, so it is efficient but borders on terse for a reader unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage and four parameters, the unexplained 'variable' parameter and the undefined dataset path concept leave a real gap for an agent assembling a first call.

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 0% – all four parameters have only titles, so the description must do the work. It partially does: 'one actual frequency' and 'no interpolation' constrain frequency_hz, 'impedance-qualified dBm' explains impedance, and '1..20 datasets' explains dataset_paths. It never explains what 'variable' denotes or what a dataset path points to.

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: compare a complex voltage at one actual frequency across 1..20 datasets, with the 'no interpolation' constraint. That is far more precise than a bare 'compare results' and implies a difference from read_results, but it never names the sibling it competes with.

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 'no interpolation' note implicitly tells the agent the frequency must land exactly on an existing sample, which is real selection guidance. It never says when to prefer this over read_results or parameter_sweep, and gives no prerequisites for building the dataset_paths list.

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