get_magnetopause_crossing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') and implies data retrieval, but doesn't specify output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the formatting could be slightly more polished for optimal readability.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the parameters well but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool in a scientific context, more context about data format or limitations would be beneficial, but it meets minimum viability.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: 'start_date' and 'end_date' with format details (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behaviors (30 days before current date for start_date, current date for end_date). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 purpose: 'Get magnetopause crossing (MPC) data.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('magnetopause crossing data'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_geomagnetic_storm' or 'get_coronal_mass_ejection', which are related space weather tools, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or explain the specific context for retrieving magnetopause crossing data compared to other space weather data tools. There's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios for usage.

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