Jt Wspr

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful ordering ('newest first') and the returned field set. That is real context beyond structured fields, though it says nothing about rate limits or the source of freshness.

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 dense sentence with the key facts front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a cryptically named tool ('jt_wspr'), but every clause 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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to state what the data is and how it's ordered — which it does. The one gap is sibling differentiation.

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% and every parameter (band, limit, callsign, since_minutes) carries its own range/default documentation, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no filtering syntax or default information beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names the specific resource (WSPR spots decoded by WSJT-X) and the fields returned, so the agent knows it's a read of WSPR spot data. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like jt_decodes or jt_heard, which plausibly overlap.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'WSPR' and 'decoded'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-jt_decodes statement. With a sibling set full of decode/heard tools, an agent must guess which one to pick for WSPR data.

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