get_planetary_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses data source (JPL DE421 ephemeris), output content (longitude, speed, domains, interpretation), and optional date format. It is transparent about what each entry includes, though the mention of 'domains of responsibility in software development' may be confusing.

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 with a clear opening sentence, details, and data source attribution. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately explains what each planet entry includes (longitude, speed, etc.). It covers parameter semantics, data source, and scope, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 single parameter 'date' is fully described: ISO 8601 format, optional, defaults to current date if not specified. Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates completely.

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 returns motion status of all tracked planets (Mercury through Neptune) with details like ecliptic longitude and speed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'retrograde_history' or 'get_lunar_phase' by focusing on planetary status.

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 the optional date parameter and default behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar siblings. Usage context is implied through the tool's focus on planetary motion, but 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.