query_signatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behaviors. It mentions searching across multiple tables and a common schema, but lacks details on mutability (likely read-only), performance, error handling, or pagination.

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 two concise sentences that communicate the core functionality. It is not verbose, but every sentence is meaningful and 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?

Given the 8 parameters (all documented in schema) and an output schema (inferred), the description provides adequate context. However, it could be more complete by briefly summarizing the output or typical usage scenarios.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions the common schema across tables but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it queries propagation signatures with filters, listing specific tables (WSPR, RBN, etc.), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like band_openings or band_summary, so it loses some clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when it would be preferred over alternatives.

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