wspr_propagation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it searches both directions automatically and returns specific statistics, but lacks details on data recency, rate limits, or potential limitations.

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 brief (under 50 words) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown) and 4 parameters, the description covers the main inputs, outputs, and key behavior (bidirectional search). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function, though the time window parameter could use a brief mention.

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%, and the description adds value by mentioning that it accepts callsigns or grid squares (already in schema) and notably states 'Searches both directions automatically,' which clarifies behavior beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it gets WSPR-derived propagation between two locations, listing specific outputs (bands, spot counts, SNR stats, hours). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., wspr_spots, wspr_band_activity) by focusing on propagation between two endpoints and mentioning bidirectional search.

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?

The description explains it accepts callsigns or grid squares, giving clear context for use. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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