Stream Eclipse Totality

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose streaming behavior (e.g., continuous updates, connection requirements), authentication needs, or output frequency. With annotations present, the description's minimal contribution results in a low score.

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 concise (two sentences plus group and example), which is efficient, but it sacrifices important details. Key information about parameters, output, and usage is missing. The structure is clear but overly minimal.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., eclipse dates, totality path, coordinates). It does not. The streaming nature is mentioned only via group label, not elaborated. The description is insufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly in context.

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 0%; the description does not mention latitude and longitude parameters at all. The example request body is empty, suggesting they are optional, but their purpose (likely location coordinates) is not explained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 provides 'Next solar+lunar eclipses with totality info,' which indicates the tool returns upcoming eclipse data with details about totality. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'eclipses' (general list) and 'stream_eclipse_incoming' (focused on incoming events). The group name 'Real-time Streaming' further clarifies its streaming nature, though the purpose could be more precise.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. Among siblings there are many eclipse-related tools (e.g., 'eclipse_analysis', 'stream_eclipse_incoming') but no context for selection. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid, or preferred use cases.

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