get_constellation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool returns, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description provides basic output format but lacks 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting could be more front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, but the structure could be slightly more efficient by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, astronomical calculations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context. It explains what the tool does, all parameters, and the return structure. However, it lacks information about error handling, precision, units (degrees assumed), and how it differs from similar astronomical tools.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail, including examples ('e.g. "Orion", "Ursa Major"') and format specifications ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS', 'IANA timezone string'). The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter constraints or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Get the position') and resource ('center of a constellation'), specifying the exact output format (altitude/azimuth). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_celestial_pos' by focusing specifically on constellations rather than general celestial objects.

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 the parameter descriptions (observer location and time), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_celestial_pos' or 'get_visible_planets'. No guidance is provided about when NOT to use this tool or what prerequisites might be needed.

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