Morning/Evening Stars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, which inform the agent about safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond a vague classification. It does not explain return values, potential inputs beyond the example, or any edge cases.

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 description is very short (one line plus group label and an example). While brevity is valued, the example is inaccurate, and the minimal text does not earn its place by providing sufficient guidance. Important details are omitted.

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?

Given 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent has little understanding of inputs, outputs, or how this tool differs from dozens of similar hellenistic siblings. The example with a non-existent 'chart' parameter adds confusion.

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%, yet the description fails to explain any parameters. The example request body includes a 'chart' key that does not exist in the input schema ('chart' is not a property), which is misleading and could cause errors. No parameter semantics are clarified.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Morning vs evening star classification.' It specifies the tradition (Hellenistic — Schmidt), which helps distinguish it from other hellenistic tools. However, it lacks detail about what exactly is classified (e.g., which planets) and the output format.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many similar hellenistic tools, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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