Jt Heard

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are cumulative from server start and lists the per-station fields reported, but says nothing about ordering behavior, whether limit truncates stations or rows, or how 'last grid sent' is derived.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed field earns its place. Slightly fragmentary grammar but appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 and annotations cover safety, so return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves the relationship to the other JT tools unaddressed and does not clarify semantics like whether 'heard since this server started' is bounded by since_minutes or how limit interacts with sorting.

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%, and all four parameters (sort, limit, callsign, since_minutes) carry descriptions with defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource (stations heard by this server) and enumerates the aggregate fields returned (count, last SNR, last grid, mode/band, first/last heard), which is more concrete than the bare name. It never names a sibling like jt_decodes, so the differentiation from per-decode listing tools is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over jt_decodes, jt_wspr, or jt_cq. The phrase 'since this server started' hints at an aggregate/summary scope, but that implication is the only guidance offered.

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