eqsl_last_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks a timestamp ('when...last uploaded'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the persona doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Check when...'), making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, with the single parameter 'persona' documented as 'Persona name configured in adif-mcp.' The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on persona names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check when a persona last uploaded QSOs to eQSL.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('last uploaded QSOs'), and target system ('eQSL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eqsl_verify' or 'eqsl_inbox', which might also involve checking eQSL status, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this specific check is appropriate, such as monitoring upload frequency or troubleshooting sync issues. Without such guidance, users might struggle to choose between this and tools like 'eqsl_verify'.

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