Wspr Top Spotters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are a ranking (implying ordered output) but says nothing about empty results, ordering stability, or the openWorld data source.

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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence largely restates the first ('most prolific or most sensitive' vs 'spot count or max distance'), making it slightly redundant.

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 full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and rich annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only gap is the missing contrast with wspr_top_beacons, a nearly adjacent sibling with the same 'top' shape.

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 all four parameters are documented with defaults and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase 'ranked by spot count or max distance' loosely mirrors sort_by but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (rank) and resource (WSPR receivers) plus the two ranking criteria, so purpose is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like wspr_top_beacons by naming receivers, but never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 final sentence offers a use case ('finding good receivers to monitor for propagation'), which implies when to call it. However, no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given, so the agent must infer whether wspr_top_beacons or wspr_band_activity is the better fit.

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