Wspr Band Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the exact aggregated metrics and the recency semantics ('open right now'), which tells the agent the output is a current snapshot. It stops short of noting aggregation or rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the returned metrics, then the interpretive use case. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated in detail; annotations cover safety. The description is nonetheless complete enough to know what the tool returns and when to reach for it. A minor gap: it doesn't connect the 'open right now' framing to the configurable hours window.

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%: the single 'hours' parameter is documented in the schema with its range and default. The description mentions 'right now' but does not add syntax or guidance about widening the window. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Get per-band WSPR activity summary,' and it enumerates the metrics returned (spot counts, TX/RX station counts, distances, SNR). It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like wspr_top_beacons or wspr_snr_trend by being the aggregate per-band view, though it doesn't name an alternative.

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?

Clear positive guidance: 'The best indicator of which bands are open right now' tells the agent exactly what question this tool answers. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., 'for a single band, use wspr_propagation'), so it falls short of a 5.

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