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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does reveal ordering and the inclusion of offer counts, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or limits. While the verb 'see' implies non-mutating, more explicit disclosure would strengthen this.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes specific, useful details. Every word earns its place, and there is 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good sense of what is returned: all planets, ordering, and the offer count. There is slight ambiguity about whether the offer count is per-planet or global, but overall it sufficiently conveys the core functionality without needing to explain return formats.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional meaning is required.

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 the tool's action: 'See the galaxy' with a specific resource (planets) and details on ordering (beacons and most-visited first) and included data (open offer count). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming planets, unlike list_offers or list_portals.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—use this to list planets. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or any alternatives among the sibling tools, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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