wspr_snr_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool reads historical data ('Get SNR trend over time') and returns 'hourly SNR buckets'. No destructive or auth details are needed for this read-only tool, and the description adequately discloses its non-mutating nature.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, followed by concise elaboration. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so explanation of return values is not required. The description covers the main intent and usage scenarios adequately. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or data format, but the output schema likely covers that. For a simple parameter set, this is sufficient.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'First endpoint — callsign or grid'). The description adds overall context by explaining the 'path between two endpoints' but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage with minimal extra value.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Get SNR trend over time for a specific WSPR path') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like wspr_spots or wspr_band_activity by focusing on trend analysis for a specific path. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear use cases ('seeing when a band opens and closes on a specific path, and how signal strength varies over time'). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context from sibling tools helps; however, an explicit when-not would elevate this score.

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