radio_reports

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it defines what one feature represents (an emitter decoded by an independent receiving station within the last `minutes`), enumerates the properties carried, and warns that positions are grid-square CENTRES requiring precision_km to be read. It omits caveats about receiver-coverage bias and data completeness.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the source and resource, then the feature semantics, then the positional caveat. No sentence is redundant.

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 explained, and the description still flags properties.precision_km as the field to check. What is missing is any handling of the `detail` parameter and the coverage/skew characteristics of crowdsourced reception data.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description anchors `minutes` to the recency window of decoded reports, which is real added meaning, but `detail` is never mentioned and its allowed values (the schema shows only a string default of 'short') remain opaque.

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 resource and source: amateur-radio reception reports from PSKReporter, plotted at the transmitter. The PSKReporter provenance implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like satnogs_observations, tinygs_packets and kiwisdr_stations, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 explains what the data is but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent deciding between this, locate_emitter, satnogs_observations and kiwisdr_stations gets no help from the text.

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