getCelestialDetails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: automatic name resolution, pre-configured observer location and current time calculations, and the types of information returned. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like accuracy constraints, failure modes for unresolvable names, or performance characteristics.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and comprehensive information returned, the second explains behavioral aspects like automatic resolution and calculation settings. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job covering the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameter context. However, it doesn't describe the format or structure of returned information, which would be important for an agent to process the results effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the tool's automatic name resolution capability ('resolves common names') and providing broader context about what types of celestial objects are supported, which complements the schema's examples.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('detailed astronomical information for a specified celestial object'), with specific examples of object types (planet, star, Messier object) and information returned (coordinates, visibility, times, distance, phases). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on detailed information retrieval rather than pathfinding or listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to get detailed astronomical information for a specific celestial object. It mentions automatic name resolution and pre-configured observer/time settings, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., use listCelestialObjects for browsing).

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