Stream Retrograde Alerts

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, which are not contradicted by the description. The description adds that this is a streaming tool providing retrograde state and next stations, but does not detail behavior like update frequency, authentication needs, or error states. It provides moderate additional context beyond annotations.

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 concise—two lines covering purpose, group, and an example. It is well-structured with a clear header and formatted group label. However, it may be too brief, missing necessary details, but within its length it is efficient.

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 (streaming tool, open-ended schema, many siblings, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how to handle streaming data, or what fields the input body may contain. The empty example confuses rather than clarifies. Important context is missing.

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 sole parameter 'body' is described as 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields'. However, the example is an empty object {} and no required fields are specified. The description fails to add meaningful semantics; the agent cannot determine what fields to include in the body.

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 'All planets retro state + next stations' which clearly indicates the tool provides retrograde state and next station dates for all planets. The title 'Stream Retrograde Alerts' reinforces the streaming nature. It distinguishes from non-streaming sibling 'retrograde_periods' by the streaming aspect.

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 includes '[Group: Real-time Streaming]' which hints at real-time usage, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrograde_periods' or other streaming tools such as 'stream_transit_alerts'. The agent receives no criteria for selection.

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