swpc_kp_index

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context about the Kp scale's meaning (quiet, unsettled, storm levels). It goes beyond the annotation by explaining the data's interpretation, but does not describe response format or update frequency.

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 two short sentences: the first states the action and the second provides the Kp scale legend. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or redundant details.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does and how to interpret the values. It could be more complete by mentioning the time range or output format, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's purpose.

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 and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing the description needs to add about parameters. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the data being returned rather than parameter syntax.

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 ('Get') and resource ('recent planetary Kp index values'), which precisely identifies the tool's function. The naming convention and Kp scale explanation distinguish it from sibling SWPC tools like swpc_dst_index and swpc_solar_flux.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the Kp scale interpretation implies use for geomagnetic activity questions, giving some situational context without explicit exclusions.

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