Wspr Top Beacons

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about result ordering guarantees, tie-breaking, or what empty results mean — so it earns baseline credit only.

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 purpose front-loaded and no wasted clauses. 'Most active or most far-reaching' mildly restates the first sentence's ranking criteria, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 a fully documented four-parameter schema, an output schema present, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers enough for an agent to call this correctly. The only gap is lack of guidance versus the closely related wspr_top_spotters and wspr_longest_paths 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%, so band, hours, limit, and sort_by are all documented in the schema already. The phrase 'ranked by spot count or max distance' loosely mirrors the sort_by enum values but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get top WSPR transmitters ranked by spot count or max distance') and implicitly separates itself from wspr_top_spotters by focusing on beacon operators/transmitters rather than listeners. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Useful for finding who's putting out a big signal on a band' implies a use case but gives no when-not conditions and never references the sibling tools (wspr_top_spotters, wspr_longest_paths) that overlap with this ranking behavior. Usage is suggested, not routed.

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