eqsl_ag_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: public access, no authentication required, and caching behavior with refresh frequency. This covers safety, access, and performance aspects, though it could add more on error handling or rate limits for a higher score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supporting details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second covers access and data behavior, with no wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and the description's coverage of key behavioral aspects, it is complete enough for effective use. The description addresses access, data source, and caching without redundancy.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'callsign' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check') and resource ('Authenticity Guaranteed (AG) status on eQSL'), with the callsign as the target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'eqsl_download' or 'eqsl_inbox' by focusing on AG status verification rather than file operations or inbox management.

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 provides clear context for usage ('Public, no auth required') and mentions the data source ('cached copy of the AG member list, refreshed every 4 hours'), which helps determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'eqsl_verify' or exclude specific scenarios, keeping it from a perfect score.

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