get_solar_flare

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 only states the action ('Get') and parameters, without mentioning any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data format, or potential side effects. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates beyond basic parameter usage.

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, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. However, the 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated, and there's some minor redundancy in stating 'Defaults to' for both dates, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate, but it doesn't fully address what the tool returns or how it interacts with the system, leaving room for improvement.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters (start_date and end_date) with details on format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default values (30 days before current date, current date). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, providing clear and necessary context for parameter usage.

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 solar flare (FLR) data.' It specifies the resource (solar flare data) and the action (get/retrieve), which is straightforward. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coronal_mass_ejection' or 'get_solar_energetic_particle', which might also retrieve solar-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as for different solar events or data types. This lack of comparative information limits the agent's ability to choose correctly among related options.

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