Explain Aspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond 'detailed explanation', and does not disclose any hidden behaviors or requirements like chart computation prerequisites.

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 very short (two sentences plus example) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids wordiness, though the example could be more precise and the group label is not essential.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., text, format). It also omits guidance on the chart parameter structure beyond the minimal example, leaving the agent to infer from the input schema alone.

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 only 20% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only provides an example request that uses 'aspect' instead of the actual parameter 'aspectType', which is slightly misleading. It does not clarify the nested 'chart' object or the purpose of other parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('aspect between two planets'), clearly distinguishing it from similar tools like ai_explain_transit which focuses on transits. The example further reinforces the purpose.

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 when to use (for aspect explanations) but does not explicitly state when not to use or what alternatives exist. The sibling list is extensive, and the title/description alone makes the context clear, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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