Stream Planetary Hour Changes

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

Annotations cover safety (openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to. It usefully adds the streaming endpoint path and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which annotations cannot convey. But it says nothing about what the stream delivers, how long it runs, or how results are framed — meaningful omissions for a streaming call flagged readOnlyHint=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 prose is extremely short and the metadata lines are front-loaded, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the one content sentence is ambiguous. The bracketed boilerplate is at least scannable.

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. But for a streaming tool with a 0%-described coordinate pair and several close sibling tools in the calendar/horary/webhook space, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently or pick it over alternatives.

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 coverage is only 33%: latitude and longitude have no descriptions and are typed as nullable numbers. The description merely restates that they are required, adding no units (degrees), sign conventions, or coordinate-order caution. Only timezoneOffset is well documented, and that is entirely in the schema, not the description.

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?

"Current planetary hour + next 24" with the tool name gives a rough idea: it returns the current planetary hour plus upcoming changes for the next 24 hours. However, it is telegraphic ("next 24" what — hours? events?) and does not distinguish it from siblings like astroway_calendar_planetary_hours or astroway_webhooks_planetary_hour_tick, which plausibly return the same domain data in different forms.

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 guidance on when to use this streaming endpoint versus the static planetary-hours tools or the webhook tick subscription. The only context is a group label and endpoint path, which tells the agent how it is exposed but not why to choose it.

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