wspr_top_spotters

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

No annotations available, so description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get') and ranking criteria, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states core purpose, second elaborates on utility. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though could hint at data source or recency.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds broad context about ranking (sort_by) but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Description starts with 'Get top WSPR receivers' specifying a clear verb and resource, and mentions ranking by spot count or max distance, distinguishing this from sibling tools like wspr_spots or wspr_top_beacons.

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?

Explicitly states 'Useful for finding good receivers to monitor for propagation,' giving clear use case guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though sibling context provides differentiation.

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