Wspr Spots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful interpretation — that each spot is a 2-minute integration and represents an actual propagation path — but says nothing about data freshness ('recent' is unquantified), result ordering, or pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The two domain sentences earn their place by explaining what a spot means, though they could have been spent on sibling differentiation instead.

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?

With 8 optional params, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and full annotations, the structured data carries most of the load. The remaining gap is selection: in a family of eight WSPR tools, the description never tells the agent why to pick this one for raw spot retrieval.

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 every filter (band, grid, hours, limit, SNR bounds, callsign, distance) is already documented with examples and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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 and resource ('Get recent WSPR spots'), so the agent knows it retrieves spot records. However, it never distinguishes this from the seven sibling wspr_* tools (wspr_band_activity, wspr_propagation, wspr_longest_paths), which likely also return spot-derived data — an agent must open schemas to choose.

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 only domain background ('beacons transmit every 2 minutes', 'proves a propagation path exists') and no when-to-use guidance. It never says when to prefer this raw spot list over wspr_band_activity, wspr_propagation, or wspr_top_beacons, nor does it state prerequisites or rate limits.

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