Stream Retrograde Alerts

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint. However it does not resolve whether "stream" means a live subscription or a one-shot snapshot, nor does it give data freshness, rate limits, or auth requirements — meaningful questions for a network-backed POST call.

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 payload line is short and front-loaded, with the metadata tags (group, endpoint, cost) placed after it so the core meaning reads first. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations supplied, the definition is structurally near-complete and the description does say what data comes back. The remaining ambiguity is the delivery model (persistent stream vs. single response) and data recency, which an agent needs before planning a call.

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, so the schema needs no elaboration and the description is not required to name any. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly says nothing about parameter values because none exist.

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?

"All planets retro state + next stations" names a specific resource (planetary retrograde state) and the two data components returned (current state, upcoming stations). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from near-neighbours such as astroway_calendar_retrograde_periods or astroway_stream_transit_alerts, so the agent gets no explicit disambiguation.

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 sentence stating when to call this versus alternatives; the only contextual hint is the structural tag "[Group: Real-time Streaming]", which weakly implies a live/current-data use case. With roughly 400 sibling tools and several retrograde-adjacent ones, the absence of any "use this when…" guidance 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.