get_favorable_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool uses real JPL ephemeris data, searches a 90-day range, and defines favorable conditions. It does not mention what happens if no window is found, but overall it provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured and concise: a headline sentence, bullet-point criteria, followed by details on search range and data source, then parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema (not shown) and 2 parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, criteria, search range, data source, and parameter details. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clearly explains each parameter: max_retrograde_planets (maximum tolerated, default 1) and start_date (optional, ISO 8601 format, defaults to now). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type and default values.

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: 'Find the next calendar window where cosmic conditions are relatively favorable for deployments and major technical decisions.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cosmic_risk_score or get_daily_briefing.

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 explains when to use the tool (for deployments and major technical decisions) and details the qualifying criteria (max retrograde planets, moon phase). However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, such as when to prefer get_cosmic_risk_score instead.

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