Omiss Net Checkins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload fields, which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, whether check-in lists are paginated or size-limited, or how large/current the data is. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is informative rather than padded. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 doesn't need to detail return values (though it does, harmlessly), and the single required param is documented in the schema. It's missing only guidance on when to prefer it over related net/check-in 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains net_id and its origin. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a well-scoped resource ('one past OMISS net') and an enumeration of the fields returned (net control, relays, frequency, notes, check-in list). It doesn't name a sibling tool or contrast itself with omiss_checkin_history / omiss_nets_on_air, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The word 'past' implies this is for historical nets as opposed to omiss_nets_on_air, and the schema points to omiss_checkin_history as the source of net_id, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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