jpl_horizons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about rate limits, remote service availability, output format, or error behavior. It does imply a networked, read-only query, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the key capability is front-loaded. It is efficient, though quite terse for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the time-range/step-size semantics, default behaviors, and expected return structure. The schema covers parameter syntax but the description leaves the overall behavior underspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with examples and defaults. The description's mention of the three queryable data products maps to the ephemeris_type enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Query) and resource (JPL Horizons) and enumerates the three data products available (ephemerides, orbital elements, state vectors), so the agent knows what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling jpl_sbdb, which also serves solar system bodies, so the purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool instead of jpl_sbdb, simbad_query, or any other sibling. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues — only a statement of what can be queried.

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