wspr_top_beacons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It explains the ranking criteria (spot count, max distance) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether results are live cached, what time window is used (beyond the hours parameter), or how ties are handled. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 very concise: two sentences front-load the action and value. Every sentence is purposeful with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on result behavior (e.g., pagination, empty results, ordering ties). It is minimally complete for a simple tool but could be more informative.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., 'ranked by spot count or max distance' reinforces the sort_by parameter). It does not introduce new meaning or clarify format or units.

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 retrieves top WSPR transmitters ranked by spot count or max distance. It mentions 'beacon operators', distinguishing from sibling tools like 'wspr_top_spotters' which likely focus on spotters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'wspr_spots' or other related tools.

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 a general use case ('finding who's putting out a big signal on a band') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wspr_top_spotters' or 'wspr_spots'. No when-not-to-use or comparative context is given.

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