Planet Ingresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the detail of including retrograde re-entries, a behavioral trait. But it does not describe response format, pagination, or other behavioral aspects beyond the annotation coverage.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, plus group/cost/example. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, the example request body could be part of the schema rather than the description, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of dates, sign names), error cases, or how planetId maps to celestial bodies. More context is needed for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning for each parameter. It provides an example request body but does not explain what 'planetId' values represent (e.g., mapping to planets) or the exact format of dates. The example gives a concrete instance but lacks semantic context.

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 it finds sign ingresses for a planet within a date range, including retrograde re-entries. The verb 'find' and resource 'sign ingresses' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling tools that also involve planetary movements or ingresses.

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?

The description provides a group label 'Calendar & Cycles' and a cost, hinting at typical usage. It mentions including retrograde re-entries, which clarifies scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., stream_ingress for real-time).

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