Stream Eclipse Incoming

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

The bracketed metadata adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: it is a real-time streaming endpoint (POST /v1/stream/eclipse-incoming) and costs 10 credits at Tier 1. However, it never explains what 'stream' means here – a one-shot snapshot of 5 upcoming eclipses, an open subscription, or SSE chunks – which matters because annotations mark openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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 one line and front-loaded, with cost/endpoint metadata clearly separated in brackets. Slightly noisy with the Group/Endpoint/Cost block, but every line carries operational value.

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 is present, so return-value explanation is not required, and cost/endpoint are disclosed. What is missing is the streaming mechanics: whether the call opens a persistent connection, how long it runs, and how it differs from the totality/countdown siblings. For a non-idempotent, open-world streaming tool that is a meaningful omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter confusion is possible.

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 resource and scope: 'Countdown to next 5 eclipses.' An agent knows what data comes back, but the description never distinguishes this from adjacent siblings like astroway_stream_eclipse_totality, astroway_calendar_eclipses, or astroway_webhooks_eclipse_alert, so sibling selection remains guesswork.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. Given a dozen eclipse-related siblings, the absence of any guidance on when this streaming countdown beats the calendar or webhook variants is a real gap.

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