chuk-mcp-celestial

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the year range constraint (1800-2050), typical output volume (2-4 eclipses per year), and the return type (SolarEclipseByYearResponse). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers essential operational context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidance, args/returns documentation, practical tips, and an example. Every sentence adds value - no redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 single-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral expectations, and an example. The 'Tips for LLMs' section adds practical guidance that helps the agent use the tool effectively within the broader toolset.

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 compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining the 'year' parameter's purpose ('Year to query'), providing the valid range (1800-2050), and showing usage in the example. This adds substantial 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of all solar eclipses occurring in a specific year', specifying the scope (worldwide) and types (total, annular, partial, hybrid). It distinguishes from sibling get_solar_eclipse_by_date by indicating this tool returns a list for a year while that one provides detailed circumstances for a specific date.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find eclipse dates') and when to use an alternative ('then use get_solar_eclipse_by_date to get detailed local circumstances'). The 'Tips for LLMs' section reinforces this workflow, providing clear guidance on tool sequencing.

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