get_best_stargazing_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions combining three tools and returns a dict with 'data' and '_meta', but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or failure modes. It adds behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 summary, list of combined tools, and parameter breakdown. It front-loads the core purpose. Though lengthy, it is appropriately sized for a complex tool with 14 parameters.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function, inputs, and return structure. It lacks examples or edge cases but is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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%, yet the description includes an 'Args:' section with brief explanations for all 14 parameters (e.g., 'Bounding box coordinates', 'IANA timezone string'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but descriptions are minimal and do not elaborate on defaults or dependencies.

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: 'Create a composite stargazing plan for a region and time.' It specifies the combination of three sub-tools, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_weather_by_position or get_nightly_forecast. The verb 'create' and resource 'composite stargazing plan' are precise.

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 implies usage through its composite nature, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analysis_area or get_nightly_forecast individually. It provides context by listing what it combines, offering implicit guidance.

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