space.skywatch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'per-section found/error' which indicates how results are structured, but does not disclose any rate limits, permissions, or other operational details. The description is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Synthesis — what is notable in YOUR sky right now (lat/lon)') and efficiently lists the three data sources. No extraneous words; every clause 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?

Given the tool combines three data sources and has no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (three sections with found/error status). It could mention that the time is 'right now' implicitly, but is otherwise complete for the complexity level.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It clearly indicates lat/lon are needed for location, but the optional altitudeM parameter is not mentioned. Thus, only 2 of 3 parameters are described, leaving a gap.

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 synthesizes sky information for a given location, listing three specific sources (almanac, asteroid approaches, ISS). It uses a specific verb ('synthesis') and resource ('your sky'), making it distinct from siblings like space.sky-tonight or space.close-approaches.

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 description implies usage for getting a combined sky report for a location, but does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like space.sky-tonight or space.close-approaches. It lacks 'when-not-to-use' guidance, though the mention of 'one call, three sources' hints at its composite nature.

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