Stream Eclipse Totality

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description usefully adds the transport ('POST /v1/stream/eclipse-totality') and cost ('10 credits, Tier 1'), which are real value-adds. It does not explain what 'streaming' means here (single response vs. subscription), whether coordinates affect which eclipses are returned, or why the operation is non-idempotent.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and the metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost) each carry operational value rather than filler. It is terse, but not padded; the only weakness is that the brevity leaves gaps rather than that it wastes words.

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 values need not be explained. Still, for a two-parameter, open-world streaming endpoint the description is incomplete: it does not resolve the optional coordinate parameters, does not clarify streaming semantics, and offers no usage context against a crowded field of eclipse-related siblings.

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% and the description never mentions latitude or longitude. The agent cannot tell whether these coordinates are needed for local eclipse visibility, what units/format they take, or what happens when they are omitted (both are nullable and optional). The names are somewhat self-explanatory but the ambiguity of optionality is left entirely unresolved.

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 names a specific resource (next solar+lunar eclipses) and a distinguishing attribute (totality info), so the agent knows roughly what it retrieves. However, there are several closely related siblings (astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming, astroway_calendar_eclipses, astroway_geo_eclipse_analysis, astroway_render_eclipse_path, astroway_webhooks_eclipse_alert) and the description gives no hint of how this differs from them beyond 'totality info'.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The '[Group: Real-time Streaming]' tag implies a real-time context, but nothing tells the agent to prefer this over astroway_calendar_eclipses or astroway_stream_eclipse_incoming, or what input conditions make it appropriate.

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