Free-text search across FCC call signs and licensee entity names. Returns up to 50 hits. Use this when the user names a callsign or company but you don't know the exact identifier yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity: license by call sign, path by USI/path number, free-text search, and tower by ASR number. No functional overlap.
All names use snake_case with a consistent structure: noun_detail or noun_profile. 'search' is a single word but fits the pattern.
With four tools, the surface is well-scoped: a search tool to locate identifiers, then three detail tools for licenses, paths, and towers. No extraneous tools.
The set covers the core querying needs for FCC data: search, license details (including paths), and tower details. Lacks direct spatial or frequency-range search, but the free-text search suffices for most uses.