Omiss Eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by naming the data source (omiss.net's own rosters, i.e. externally-maintained truth) and clarifying that only the queried callsigns are answered, which bounds the response scope.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the second and third sentences add usage routing and response scope with no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('For stations on a net:') and gratuitous line breaks keep it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the source of truth, the intended pairing with check-in tools, and the response boundary. It could be more complete by clarifying the batch-vs-single-lookup split against omiss_member_lookup.

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 the single array parameter already documents its item format and the 200-callsign cap. The description adds only the semantic that results are limited to callsigns asked about; it contributes little parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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: for a set of stations, report OMISS membership and which award categories each counts for, sourced from omiss.net rosters. Clear enough to act on, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling omiss_member_lookup, so an agent may hesitate between the single-lookup and batch variants.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: pair it with a net's check-ins, naming netlogger_checkins for a live net and omiss_net_checkins for a past one, to identify who is still needed. It stops short of explicit exclusions or saying when to prefer omiss_member_lookup over this batch tool.

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