swpc_goes_particles

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—no return format, temporal scope, or data quirks. The SEP event sentence is interpretive context, not behavioral disclosure. For a zero-param tool, this leaves agents guessing about the output.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and resource, and the second explains why the data matters. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (zero params, read-only), and the description covers its purpose and use case. However, with no output schema, the absence of any indication of the return data (e.g., time series, units, timeliness) leaves an agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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 zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to convey. The schema is empty, and the description correctly focuses on the data source. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get GOES satellite energetic particle flux data.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as swpc_goes_xray and swpc_solar_flux, which cover different space weather data.

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 second sentence provides context: 'Elevated particle flux indicates solar energetic particle (SEP) events that can affect satellites and polar aviation.' This implies when an agent should use the tool (to check for SEP activity), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it offers clear context without exclusions.

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