Eclipse Path Map (SVG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description usefully adds the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the HTTP endpoint. It omits behavior an agent would care about, notably that options.format defaults to 'json' despite the SVG title, and how the band is derived geometrically.

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 front-loaded sentences carry the essential rendering behavior, followed by compact metadata lines for group, endpoint, required parameter and cost. There is no filler, though the terseness errs toward under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a render tool with 5 parameters, nested option objects, 0% schema description coverage and a default format of 'json', the description leaves large gaps: output format expectations, the path vs centerlinePoints distinction, and any styling options are undocumented. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the input-side gaps remain material.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only loosely gestures at 'path' and 'bandWidthDeg'; it never explains the relationship or precedence between the required 'path' array and the optional 'centerlinePoints' array of identical shape, nor describes the nested 'options' object (format, theme, width, height, pathColor, showGraticule).

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 concrete verb and resource: it renders an eclipse path onto an equirectangular world graticule with a centerline plus a shaded band of a given degree width. That is specific enough to distinguish it from generic render siblings like astroway_render_star_map or astroway_render_timeline, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'caller-supplied eclipse track' hints that coordinates must be provided by the caller, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no redirection to alternatives such as astroway_geo_eclipse_analysis or astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming. An agent has to infer eligibility entirely from the required 'path' parameter and the group label.

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