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

Annotations declare `readOnlyHint: false`, `idempotentHint: false`, and `openWorldHint: true`, but the description does not explain what the stream does, how it is consumed, what triggers emissions, or why the annotations show a non-idempotent, non-readonly profile for what looks like a read of ephemeris data. It adds only the cost/credit tier, not behavioral context.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded — one line plus two bracketed metadata tags. Nothing wasted, though the brevity itself is part of the problem since more disclosure is needed.

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?

For a real-time streaming tool with a non-trivial annotation profile and many siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain stream semantics, emission triggers, or how consumption differs from the webhook sibling; the presence of an output schema covers return values but not stream behavior.

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?

Both parameters (`fields`, `precision`) are fully documented in the schema with examples and defaults. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing parameter-related.

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 states the resource (Moon void-of-course) and the payload (current VOC + next ingress). It is understandable but terse and does not distinguish this streaming endpoint from siblings like `astroway_stream_ingress` or `astroway_webhooks_void_of_course_start`, which cover closely related events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus `astroway_webhooks_void_of_course_start` (webhook for the start event) or `astroway_stream_ingress` (other streamed ingresses). The agent must infer the streaming-vs-webhook distinction from the group tag alone.

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