rf_towers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the conditional backend selection (OpenCelliD vs BeaconDB) and the interpretation of empty results as unmapped areas rather than absence of towers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly scoped paragraphs: a one-line purpose, return/use-case context, and a data-source caveat. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

Combined with the full input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, data-source behavior, coverage limitations, and interpretation of results. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains location and radius_m. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or format details, but it does not need to given the complete schema.

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: 'Find known cell towers near a location.' It also describes the return data (radio technology, operator MCC-MNC, approximate position), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from spatial or RF-calculation siblings.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: coverage benchmarking, IoT/fixed-wireless site qualification, and diagnosing poor signal at an address. It also explains the empty-result meaning. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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