Stream Eclipse Incoming

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the vague verb 'countdown'. It does not explain whether the tool initiates a stream, returns a one-time count, or requires ongoing polling. The example request body {} offers no clarity on expected behavior.

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 extremely short (one sentence plus group label and example), which achieves conciseness but sacrifices necessary detail. The group label provides mild structure, but the content is too sparse for adequate understanding. It could benefit from a few more sentences without becoming verbose.

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?

The description fails to address the tool's complexity as a streaming tool. No output schema is provided, and the description omits critical operational details such as whether the countdown is streamed or static, how to manage the stream, or typical response formats. Given the openWorldHint and the nature of real-time streaming, this description is woefully incomplete.

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 100%, but the schema description reads 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields', and the tool description example is an empty object {}. This implies no fields are required, but the actual meaning of the body parameter remains underspecified. The description adds no structural detail beyond the schema's minimal text.

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 states 'Countdown to next 5 eclipses', which clearly identifies the action (countdown) and resource (next 5 eclipses). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool stream_eclipse_totality, which might have a similar focus on eclipses. The title reinforces the purpose of streaming upcoming eclipses.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stream_eclipse_totality or eclipse_analysis. The description only includes a group label '[Group: Real-time Streaming]' which weakly contextualizes it among streaming tools, but does not specify selection criteria or exclusions.

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