Planet Ingresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes two traits not in the annotations: the credit cost ('100 credits (Tier 4)') and the fact that retrograde re-entries are included in the results, both of which affect planning. It does not state date-range limits or result ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and scope, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required params, cost) with no filler. Every line carries information an agent can act on.

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?

The presence of an output schema and full annotation coverage removes the need to describe return values or safety. What remains missing is the planetId vocabulary — the tool is unusable without knowing which numeric IDs are accepted — plus any bound on range length, which is a real gap for a 3-parameter, 0%-coverage schema.

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%: startDate and endDate are only constrained by a YYYY-MM-DD regex, and planetId is a bare number-or-null with no enumeration or mapping. The description merely restates '[Required: planetId, startDate, endDate]' and says 'date range' without clarifying what planet identifiers are valid or what null planetId means, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'Find all sign ingresses for a planet within a date range' — and adds the qualifying detail '(including retrograde re-entries),' which pins down what counts as an ingress. It does not name a sibling such as astroway_stream_ingress or astroway_calendar_planetary_cycles, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'[Group: Calendar & Cycles]' and the date-range framing imply this is a retrospective lookup tool, and the retrograde note hints at completeness of results. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over astroway_stream_ingress (live notifications) or astroway_calendar_retrograde_periods, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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