Wspr Grid Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns summary statistics plus recent spots and that grid granularity controls geographic 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 description is short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first sentence. The remaining sentences efficiently explain the return content and grid-size behavior, though the phrase 'in or out of' is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the input schema has full parameter descriptions, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the query's geographic scope and return content, with only minor room to clarify tool selection versus siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the grid 2-character vs 4-character distinction but does not add syntax or meaning for band, hours, or limit beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Get all WSPR activity in or out of a Maidenhead grid square' — and clarifies that it returns summary stats and recent spots. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wspr_band_activity or wspr_spots, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives useful parameter-level guidance: use a 2-character grid for a wide area and a 4-character grid for a specific region. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as wspr_band_activity or wspr_spots, nor does it state any exclusions.

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