N1Mm Contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: the response bundles the last QSO plus recent edits and deletes into one snapshot. It is silent on safety profile, read-only nature, and any volume/rate limits, but the return-value behavior is partially conveyed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and then the return content; no filler or repetition. Slightly terse, 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and all six parameters are schema-documented. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter query tool the description is nearly complete; only explicit usage routing is missing.

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 all six optional filters (band, mode, count, since, call_pattern, station_name) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'filtered recent QSOs' without adding syntax, defaults, or interactions, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('QSO log — recent contacts, edits, and deletes') and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains (last QSO, filtered recent QSOs, edits, deletes). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like n1mm_lookup and n1mm_current_state by being the log/history view, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no alternative tool named. An agent can loosely infer it is for inspecting recent QSO activity, but the description gives no explicit routing guidance against the eight sibling tools.

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