swpc_goes_xray

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds domain context (flare classes and radio blackouts) but no operational behavior details such as time range, units, or output format. This is acceptable for a read-only data fetch, but adds limited transparency 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 only two sentences. The first states the action, the second provides useful interpretive context about X-ray flare classes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives core purpose and domain context but omits specifics like units (e.g., watts/m²), time coverage, or whether data is current or historical. This is a moderate gap for an agent interpreting results.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get GOES satellite X-ray flux data.' This uniquely identifies the tool among SWPC siblings like swpc_solar_flux, swpc_goes_particles, or swpc_kp_index. The added flare classification context reinforces the tool's specific subject.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for GOES X-ray flux data, which implicitly distinguishes it from other SWPC data tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it is a 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.