iota_dxcc

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the bidirectional nature and conditional usage, but does not specify behavior when both parameters are provided, when none are provided, or any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or waste. It is appropriately concise.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the two modes of operation. However, it lacks guidance on handling invalid inputs (e.g., both parameters provided or none), which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

Input schema already has 100% description coverage with examples. The tool description adds functional meaning by clarifying the direction of mapping for each parameter ('find all IOTA groups for a DXCC entity' vs 'find which DXCC entities an IOTA group belongs to'), which goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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: bidirectional mapping between DXCC entities and IOTA groups. It specifies two distinct use cases (dxcc_num or refno) and uses a specific verb (mapping) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like general lookup or search.

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 usage conditions: use dxcc_num to find IOTA groups or refno to find DXCC entities. It implies the tool should be used when such bidirectional mapping is needed, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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