constellation_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially incomplete data. The description adds valuable context about data sources (ESI and SDE APIs) and content scope (systems and boundaries), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, data sources, and key content. Every element earns its place with no redundant information, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and its data sources. With annotations covering read-only and open-world hints, and the schema fully describing the parameter, the description is adequately complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details, but this is mitigated by the tool's straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter description already detailing the array of constellation IDs, numeric-only requirement, max 50 items, and the need to use universal_name_to_id for name conversion. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get comprehensive constellation information') and specifies the data sources ('from both ESI and SDE APIs') and content scope ('including systems and boundaries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like region_info, solar_system_info, and universal_name_to_id by focusing specifically on constellations.

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 usage context by mentioning the need to convert names to IDs first using the universal_name_to_id tool, which is reinforced in the parameter description. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like region_info or solar_system_info, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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