Omiss Nets On Air

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add real context: the data comes from NetLogger and represents a live snapshot ('as_of_utc', 'on the air now'). It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only list tool the freshness/source disclosure is the meaningful behavioral fact.

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?

Effectively two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return fields. The return listing is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact and does not bury the purpose.

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 return-value enumeration is not strictly necessary, yet the description is otherwise complete for a zero-param, read-only listing tool: it names the source, the freshness, and the shape of results. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document — the baseline for this dimension is 4 by the rubric.

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 and resource ('List OMISS nets on the air now') with a clear real-time scope that separates it from the schedule sibling, omiss_net_schedule. It stops short of naming any alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'on the air now' implies the usage condition — use it when you want currently active nets rather than a schedule — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g. omiss_net_schedule).

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