Wspr Longest Paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context — that WSPR's precise timing/low power makes long paths meaningful evidence of band openness — which helps interpretation. It says nothing about ordering (presumably descending distance), limits, or empty-result behavior, so it adds only modest value.

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 operative instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence is short interpretive context rather than repetition. The wording is slightly padded ('gold standard for detecting marginal propagation') but it earns its place as domain rationale.

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 return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the read-only profile. For a simple four-optional-parameter query tool the description is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is disambiguation from sibling propagation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with band, hours, limit and min_distance all documented in-schema including ranges and an example (15000 km near-antipodal). The description adds no meaning beyond that; at best 'given time window' loosely echoes the hours parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 — retrieve the longest WSPR paths within a time window — which is immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this from the semantically adjacent sibling wspr_propagation (or wspr_top_beacons/wspr_top_spotters), so an agent must guess which 'path/ranking' query it wants.

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?

'Get the longest WSPR paths in the given time window' plus 'Long paths here prove the band is open' implies the use case (assessing marginal band openings), but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as wspr_propagation for a different propagation view.

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