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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it reports three distinct version axes, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about cost, caching, or environment variability beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause identifies a distinct returned value. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and the parameter set is empty, so the description need not explain return structure further. For a simple, read-only, zero-arg metadata tool it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 verb (get) and resource (version info) and enumerates exactly what is returned: the MCP server version, the NetLogger API version it targets, and the record schema version. No sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/compatibility check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before parsing records, when schema mismatches occur) or names any alternative. Adequate for a trivial zero-param tool, but no explicit guidance is offered.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the real-time scope ("on the air now"); it says nothing extra about filtering behavior, result freshness, or upstream availability. Output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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?

Six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential scope. A brief note on the name filter or on data freshness/availability would fully close the gap.

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 name_like parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including case-insensitive substring matching and the empty-string default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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?

Specific verb (list) and resource (nets) with a temporal qualifier ("on the air now") that implicitly separates it from netlogger_past_nets. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the distinction relies on inference.

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?

"Now" implies using this for live/current nets rather than historical ones, but the description never states when to prefer netlogger_past_nets or netlogger_checkins. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by explaining what the 'pointer' is (station net control is working now), which is non-obvious and not in the schema — though it doesn't mention that results change as check-ins arrive or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary return value and then clarifies the less obvious secondary one; 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers both what is returned and the pointer semantics. It could still say what happens for a net that isn't live, but nothing essential is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including that they come from netlogger_active_nets. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, so it sits at the baseline.

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 verb and resource ('Get a live net's check-in list') plus the extra return value (the serial-number pointer). The word 'live' implicitly separates it from sibling netlogger_past_checkins, though the sibling is never named.

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 only implied by 'live net' and by the schema note that net_name/server_name come from netlogger_active_nets. It never says when to prefer it over netlogger_past_checkins or what to do if the net is not currently running.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on result size, pagination, or what happens if the net is still active. The one extra implication ('closed') is worth little on its own.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but sits close to under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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 and full annotation coverage carry most of the load, and the schema documents where the three IDs come from. Still missing is the workflow context (you must first call netlogger_past_nets) and any distinction from netlogger_checkins, which the description alone leaves for the agent to infer.

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 100%, and each parameter already states it comes from netlogger_past_nets. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (get a check-in list) and scopes it to a closed net, which distinguishes it from the sibling netlogger_checkins (active nets) in substance. It does not name the sibling it differs from, so the distinction must be inferred from the word 'closed'.

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 implies usage only through the word 'closed' — an agent must infer that this is for finished nets rather than live ones. It never states prerequisites (the net must already be ended) or points at alternatives like netlogger_checkins, though the schema descriptions do reference netlogger_past_nets for the IDs.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the result carries net IDs consumed by another tool. It says nothing about ordering, result volume, or what happens when no nets match.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the concrete action and closing with the cross-tool dependency. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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-value detail is not required, and the parameter set is fully documented. The only soft spot is the vague 'last few days' against a 7-day default, though the schema resolves that.

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 100% and both parameters document their own semantics, including the >7-day rule requiring name_like, so the baseline would be 3. The description does add the 'last few days' framing that motivates interval_days, giving slight lift above baseline.

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 verb and resource ('List closed nets') with an explicit time scope ('over the last few days'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling netlogger_active_nets. It also names the downstream consumer of the returned net IDs, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces.

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 implies the workflow — call this to obtain net IDs before invoking netlogger_past_checkins — which is strong routing guidance. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention the active-nets alternative by name, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the write/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the callsign is sent with every request to distinguish users, which explains why it must be set first and why it must be accurate. It stops short of saying whether the value persists across sessions or can be overwritten later.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing. The explanation of why NetLogger needs the callsign is slightly padded but earns some of its space by justifying the 'ask, don't guess' rule.

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 and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, timing, and value provenance; the only gap is lifecycle behavior — whether re-calling it replaces the stored callsign or whether it is scoped to the session.

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 100% with a single well-documented parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds provenance guidance beyond the schema — the value must come from the user, not be inferred — which meaningfully constrains how the agent should populate the field.

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 verb and resource — "Save the user's amateur radio callsign" — and immediately clarifies its role as a one-time identity setup step. Against siblings that are all read-only net/checkin queries, this is unmistakably the configuration setter.

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?

"Needed once, before the first lookup" gives explicit ordering and prerequisite context, and "Ask the user for their own callsign; don't guess it" is an explicit when-not instruction. No alternative tool exists for this purpose, so nothing is left to inference.

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