N1Mm Lookup

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 substantive work: it discloses the trigger condition, the payload contents, and a freshness guard (lookup_age_ms > 30000 means the advice window has closed). It does not cover permissions, latency, or error behavior, but the freshness disclosure is genuinely non-obvious context.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the trigger and return contents front-loaded. The only slightly wasteful element is the promotional 'THE Contest-Copilot trigger' phrase, which adds tone rather than information.

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 return fields need not be enumerated and the age-window hint is a bonus. The gap is on the input side: the single parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent has no guidance on what to supply for station_name.

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?

There is one parameter (station_name, nullable with default null) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it never mentions station_name at all. It also names a return field (lookup_age_ms) rather than clarifying the input, leaving the agent to infer why a station name would be passed.

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 ('pre-log callsign lookup') and specifies what comes back (lookup data plus current band/mode from RadioInfo). It is distinguishable from siblings like n1mm_contacts or n1mm_current_state, though the 'THE Contest-Copilot trigger' framing is editorial rather than informative.

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?

It names the triggering event in N1MM (operator types a callsign and presses spacebar), which implies when the lookup is relevant. However, it never says when an agent should call this versus n1mm_current_state, n1mm_contacts, or the other siblings, and no exclusions are given.

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