Jt Cq

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that — deduplication to the latest CQ per station and newest-first ordering — but says nothing about result volume or the latency implied by openWorldHint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core question, and the enumerated CQ forms double as a semantic key for the cq_type filter. The parenthetical lists are dense but each item is informative rather than padding.

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, annotations cover safety, and all five parameters are documented in the schema, so the description only needs to add scope and semantics — which it does. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against jt_decodes/jt_heard, which matters given how many adjacent tools exist.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns credit by explaining what the cq_type values actually mean: 'activity' maps to POTA/SOTA/WWFF/IOTA, 'contest' to TEST/FD/RU/WW, 'region' to NA/EU, and 'frequency' to 'CQ 290'. That is meaning the schema's terse 'one of plain, dx, activity, ...' does not convey.

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 states the resource and the question it answers ('Who is calling CQ, and what kind of CQ'), then enumerates the CQ categories with concrete ham-radio examples (POTA, SOTA, TEST, RU, NA, 'CQ 290'). That makes the purpose clear even though the tool name and title ('jt_cq' / 'Jt Cq') are cryptic, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as jt_decodes or jt_heard.

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 scope ('latest CQ per station, newest first') implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of jt_decodes or jt_heard, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the boundary from the word 'CQ' alone.

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