list_visible_planets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description includes the return format (dict with 'data' and '_meta' keys, data is a list of planet dicts with name, altitude, azimuth) which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or limits (e.g., rate limiting, data freshness).

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 and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list for Args and Returns. No redundant words or sentences.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in full detail but still provides a helpful overview. The tool has 4 required parameters with clear descriptions. Minor improvement: could mention that only planets are included, or what altitude/azimuth mean, but overall adequate.

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 description provides meaningful parameter explanations beyond the input schema, including units for lon/lat (degrees), time format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS), and timezone type (IANA). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is clearly described in the Args section.

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 gets a list of solar system planets currently visible above horizon, using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'list of solar system planets'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_celestial_pos which likely retrieves positions of arbitrary 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For example, it does not clarify that this tool only returns planets (not stars or other objects) or that it requires valid observer coordinates.

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