kiwisdr_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, geographic coverage, or return format. It implies a passive read operation but adds no concrete behavioral context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though the ambiguity of 'Map of' means it earns slightly less than perfect conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described in detail. However, with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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?

The single optional parameter 'detail' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what 'detail' controls, what values it accepts beyond the default 'short', or how it affects the response.

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 names a specific resource and scope (public KiwiSDR software-defined radio receivers worldwide), which distinguishes it from general ground-station or radio-report siblings. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not say whether it returns a station list, map tiles, GeoJSON, or a rendered map, leaving the operation ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as satnogs_ground_stations, weather_sondes, or radio_reports. The agent must infer usage solely from the resource name.

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