rf_link_budget

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a crucial behavior: it emits a warning when parameters fall outside the model's published validity range, noting that an empirical model out of range still returns a confident number and nothing else catches that. It also clarifies that this is a statistical model over an idealised environment, not a specific path. These are valuable behavioral caveats that annotations cannot convey.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by use cases, then a critical warning, and finally limitations and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place – no filler or redundant restating of the tool name. The length is justified given the tool's complexity (4 models, 5 environments, 11 parameters) and the need to convey model validity caveats.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of a rich output schema (mentioned as present), the description is complete for calling the tool correctly. It covers the main use cases, warns about out-of-range model use, and clarifies the statistical vs. specific-path distinction. It does not describe the output format in prose, but the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that all parameters are optional, though the schema already shows defaults for all, so that's covered.

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 100% – every parameter has a description that explains its meaning, units, and defaults. The tool description does not add extra semantic context for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does explain the interaction between environment and default fade margin, but that's already implied in the schema description for environment. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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 opens with a clear verb-object pair ('Calculate maximum allowable path loss and the resulting cell radius') that names the exact resource and output. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is not for specific paths ('not "does this exact link clear that ridge?"') and names terrain_profile and rf_towers as alternatives. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('size cell coverage, compare frequency bands, or check whether a proposed link closes') and explicit exclusions: it answers a statistical coverage question, not a point-to-point path question. It even routes to sibling tools (terrain_profile, rf_towers) for those scenarios. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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