get_cosmic_risk_score

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses score components, data sources, and parameter behavior but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling for missing data. The phrase 'when NOAA data is available' hints at conditional behavior but without stating fallback.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence adds value. It provides a clear structure without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the score components and data sources thoroughly. However, it does not summarize the output format (even though an output schema exists) and omits potential error conditions for unavailable data. Despite this, it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% coverage for the date parameter, but the description explains its ISO 8601 format, optionality, and default behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 computes a composite cosmic risk score from 0 to 100, lists the components and data sources, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual factors or actions.

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 obtaining a risk score, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_lunar_phase or get_planetary_status. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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