N1Mm Pileup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by defining what counts as a dupe (already worked on that band and mode), how dead air is measured (gaps of 2+ minutes), and how split is reported (RX, TX, kHz up). It does not mention ordering, cost, or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One-line purpose up front, then a single structured sentence enumerating the metrics with the window constraint stated first. Dense but every clause maps to a reported value; no filler.

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?

Two optional parameters, full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema mean the description only needs to explain intent and scope, which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance against the many sibling analytics tools.

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 3 baseline applies; the description goes beyond it by stating the window default (60) and its valid range (5 to 1440), which the schema does not express. station_name is not further explained, so it stops short of full parameter coverage.

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?

Lead sentence names a specific view ('DXpedition pileup view') and enumerates the exact dimensions it reports: rate, callers, dupes, split, dead air. This is clearly distinguishable from raw-contact siblings like n1mm_contacts, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer which of the other N1MM analytics tools overlaps.

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 implied by the framing ('pileup view') and by the window_minutes parameter, but the description never states when to reach for this versus n1mm_performance, n1mm_bandmap, or n1mm_current_state. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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