radar_range

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses the monostatic same-antenna assumption, the fourth-root relationship, return formats (human-readable plus machine-readable JSON), and the PhysicalViolationError dict behavior on invalid physics or exceeded ranges. This is far more behavioral detail than is typical.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and formula, followed by a compact bulleted use-case list and a brief return/error summary. It is moderately long but every segment earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 10-parameter physics-heavy tool with a nullable validation input, the description supplies the equation, assumptions, use cases, return behavior, and error handling. Since an output schema exists, it correctly avoids over-explaining return fields, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 all 10 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how parameters combine in the governing equation and explicitly linking claimed_range_m to the validation behavior, plus explaining integration gain and Swerling I defaults. Most individual parameter semantics remain in the schema, but the equation adds meaningful physical context.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Calculate maximum monostatic radar detection range and validate range claims.' It also differentiates the tool from siblings by anchoring it to the radar range equation and fourth-root fallacy, making its scope unmistakable.

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 provides an explicit 'Use this tool when you need to' list with concrete scenarios such as validating claimed ranges and checking R^4 path loss. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like rf_link_budget or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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