search_qso

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

Annotations already declare a safe (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive) read, so the safety burden is offloaded. The description adds genuine behavioral context: default limit of 50, total-count reporting via a 'total' field, and offset-based paging. Return-field structure beyond 'total' and the query cost remain unspecified.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, then a clean Args list where every entry adds non-redundant meaning. No filler; each line earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description documents every input with examples and defaults, plus pagination and the 'total' return hint. It is essentially complete for correct invocation; only the shape of returned records is left implicit, which is acceptable absent an output schema.

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%, so the description bears the full documentation burden and does so well: wildcard syntax (`JA1*`, * ?), date format and inclusivity (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive), case-insensitive mode, JCC/JCG prefix example ('09' -> Nagano), qsl_rcvd boolean meaning, partial-match semantics for name/QTH, and limit/offset/order behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching QSO (contact) records with filters. This clearly distinguishes a record-search tool from aggregation siblings like qso_stats and award_progress. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the search semantics, and the description usefully points to db_info for discovering valid band values. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or direct comparison to the sibling aggregation tools. Cross-referencing db_info is a partial, not complete, routing signal.

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