Eclipses

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 is fully covered structurally. The description adds a useful summary of what is returned ('type, date, and geographic visibility data'), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but an output schema already exists so this is largely redundant rather than additive.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return summary second; nothing wasted. The trailing bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost) is template boilerplate rather than prose, though the cost tier is genuinely useful information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it covers the basic input shape. But for a tool whose parameters are entirely undocumented in schema, the missing explanation of year-vs-yearsRange and the 20-year cap leaves a real gap before an agent can call it confidently.

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 burden for both parameters. It hints at 'year or multi-year range', loosely mapping to `year` and `yearsRange`, but never explains their interaction (is yearsRange an alternative or an addition to year?), nor the 1–20 cap on yearsRange, nor what format `year` expects.

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 and resource ('Find solar and lunar eclipses') plus the temporal scope ('within a given year or multi-year range'), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated calendar tools. However, the tool set contains several eclipse-adjacent siblings (astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming, astroway_geo_eclipse_analysis, astroway_render_eclipse_path, astroway_webhooks_eclipse_alert) and the description never clarifies that this is the raw eclipse-list endpoint versus those.

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 phrase 'within a given year or multi-year range' implies when the tool applies, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the eclipse sibling tools (path rendering, geographic analysis, streaming alerts) that an agent would need to disambiguate.

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