Wspr Propagation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing that both directions are searched automatically (saving a redundant reversed call) and by summarizing the returned aggregation (spot counts, SNR statistics, hours of opening). It does not mention rate limits or data-recency caveats.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then output contents, then input flexibility, then the bidirectional behavior. No filler; everything earns its place.

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 values need no exposition, and annotations fully carry the safety profile. The description is complete for correct invocation, with the only gap being selection guidance relative to the eight sibling 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%, including the callsign-or-grid flexibility for tx and rx, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description re-states that flexibility and adds the directional-searching nuance, but contributes little beyond the structured fields — the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('WSPR-derived propagation'), and the exact scope ('between two locations'), plus what the result contains (bands open, spot counts, SNR, hours of opening). It is distinguishable from siblings like wspr_grid_activity by being point-to-point, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it when you want band-opening data between two endpoints — and it explains that callsigns, grids, or a mix are accepted and both directions are searched. However, it never says when to prefer wspr_band_activity, wspr_grid_activity, or wspr_longest_paths instead, and gives no exclusions or preconditions.

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