retrograde_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the use of 'NASA JPL DE421 ephemeris' and that the maximum years is 10, which adds validity. However, it does not discuss error handling, performance, or what happens when no records are found.

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 purpose, and structured with an Args section. Every sentence contributes value: purpose, use case, and parameter details. No redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. Parameters are thoroughly described, and behavioral info like ephemeris source is provided. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of error responses), but overall completeness is high for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter. For 'planet,' it lists accepted values and default. For 'years,' it explains the meaning, default, and maximum. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Return all retrograde periods for a given planet over the last N years.' This specifies the verb (return), resource (retrograde periods), and scope (last N years). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_favorable_window' and 'get_planetary_status' by focusing on historical periods.

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 suggests using the tool for 'overlaying against your deployment history to discover correlations,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving the decision partially implicit.

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