Algol Nearest Minimum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add genuinely useful context the annotations lack: cost (10 credits, Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the required parameter. It does not explain tie-breaking when the prior and next minima are equidistant, nor whether the direction is returned alongside the result.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) are scannable. Minor cost is that the metadata block is largely structured data that could have lived in annotations rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a tool whose only interesting semantic is 'which nearest minimum does it pick,' the description leaves `longitude` unexplained and doesn't clarify the before/after resolution rule, which is the one thing an agent could plausibly get wrong.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and only partly does: it names `date` as required but says nothing about the expected YYYY-MM-DD format or, more importantly, says nothing about the `longitude` parameter, which the agent has no way to interpret from unstructured context. Two undocumented parameters is a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Find), a specific resource (Algol brightness minimum), and the exact scope: the single nearest one before or after a given date. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling astroway_calendar_algol_minimum, which presumably returns a set rather than one nearest event.

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 'nearest before or after a given date' phrasing implicitly tells the agent this is a point-query rather than a range scan, but it never names the sibling astroway_calendar_algol_minimum as the alternative or states when to prefer one over the other. The agent must infer the choice from the sentence alone.

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