Stream Void-of-Course

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not explain what 'stream' means (e.g., SSE, WebSocket, polling), how the connection works, or whether authentication or rate limits apply.

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 and front-loads the purpose, then group, then example. This is concise but the structure is minimal, and the example is unhelpful (empty object). Some sentences lack actionable information.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON fields, streaming events). For a streaming tool, this omission is critical; the agent cannot know what data to expect or how to parse it.

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?

There is only one parameter ('body') with schema coverage 100%, but its description merely points to an empty example. The description does not explain what fields the body can contain or what the expected format is, leaving the agent confused.

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 returns 'Current Moon VOC + next ingress,' which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'moon_voc' or 'horary_moon_voc' that also deal with Moon void-of-course; the 'Stream' prefix and group hint at real-time updates but are not explicit.

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 streaming tool versus other Moon VOC tools or alternative streaming endpoints. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and group alone.

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