fccdb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown) but fails to mention read-only nature, potential errors, prerequisites (e.g., valid call sign), or rate limits. For a simple query tool, key behavioral traits are missing.

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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and output.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned and the output format. Minor gaps in behavioral details prevent a higher score.

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% with one parameter (call_sign) described as 'FCC call sign, e.g. KAC75'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing data types returned; the schema already provides the format example.

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 retrieves full data for a single FCC license by call sign, listing specific data types (licensee, locations with coordinates, antennas, paths, frequencies) and output format (Markdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like path_profile or tower_detail.

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 implies usage when full license details by call sign are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names offer some context, but no direct exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses response format differences (HTML vs Markdown) and what the Markdown response includes (endpoints, length, frequency, but not chart). It could mention permissions or limitations but is otherwise adequate.

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 sentences that are clear and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more verbose than necessary but still concise.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool returns and the response format distinction. It does not explain full response structure but that is acceptable.

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%, but the description adds valuable context: explaining that usi is a per-license integer and path_number is within that license, thus clarifying the identifier semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it returns metadata for a single microwave path on a license, distinguishing it from sibling tools license_detail, search, and tower_detail which handle licenses, generic searches, and towers respectively.

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 implies usage when needing path metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Returns up to 50 hits,' which is useful but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences: first states the action and return limit, second provides usage guidance. No redundant or wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers the search scope, result limit, and usage context. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of hits), but not essential. Sibling tools are well-defined for when exact identifiers are known.

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 50% (q gets a description, limit does not). The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'up to 50 hits' implying the limit parameter, but does not independently explain the limit parameter or its syntax. The schema already provides defaults and range for limit, so the description adds little beyond what is already structured.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Free-text search' and the resource 'FCC call signs and licensee entity names', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like license_detail which focus on a single record.

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 guidance on when to use: 'Use this when the user names a callsign or company but you don't know the exact identifier yet.' It implies alternative tools for known identifiers, though it could explicitly mention what not to use.

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

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

No annotations present, so description fully describes behavior: returns comprehensive data in Markdown format. Discloses exactly what fields are included, which is good for transparency. Could mention read-only nature or potential errors, but still solid.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, content, and output format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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?

No output schema, but description covers return format (Markdown) and lists included data. For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, this is nearly complete. Missing error handling details, but not critical.

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 already describes 'asr_number' as '7-digit integer' with 100% coverage. Description does not add beyond that, but parameter is simple and schema is sufficient, so baseline 3 is exceeded due to clarity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full data for an antenna structure by ASR registration number' and lists specific content types (owner, location, height, licensees), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing from sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like license_detail or path_profile; context is implied by content listing but not stated. Agent must infer use case.

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