swpc_solar_cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds context about what data is shown (observed and predicted sunspot numbers and F10.7 flux) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as update frequency or data source. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get predicted solar cycle progression') and adds necessary detail in the second sentence. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and a simple read-only purpose, the description is complete enough to inform an agent. It clearly states what data is returned, though it doesn't mention data source or update frequency, which would be nice but not essential for basic usage.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description explains the tool's output scope, which is helpful given no parameters exist.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving solar cycle progression data, including observed and predicted sunspot numbers and F10.7 flux. It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic sunspot or flux tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 implies the tool is for current solar cycle data retrieval, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related SWPC tools like swpc_sunspots or swpc_solar_flux. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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