list_celestial_bodies

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for an 8-parameter tool. It never states that this is a non-mutating read, says nothing about result ordering, default payload size, or that include_embedding can return 1024-float vectors per row, and gives no indication of what is returned when filters match nothing. The mention of 'embedding metadata' is the only behavioral hint beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and filterable dimensions come first. It is slightly over-packed with parentheticals, but nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With eight optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should say more about the shape of results — ordering, whether embeddings are excluded by default, and how filters compose. The description correctly establishes that this is a filtered list operation, but an agent would still have to infer return behavior entirely from the schema.

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 all eight parameters (q, limit, offset, theme, embedded, star_system_id, cosmic_structure_id, include_embedding) are already documented in structured form, including defaults and bounds. The description's mention of 'themes' and 'embedding metadata' merely echoes the schema and adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail (e.g., whether q and theme combine with AND semantics).

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 uses a specific verb pair ('List and filter') with a concrete resource ('celestial bodies') and clarifies scope with examples (exoplanets, moons, dwarf planets) plus the filterable dimensions (physical/orbital themes, embedding metadata). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_celestial_body and create_celestial_body by being the enumeration path, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'list and filter' suggests browsing and querying, but the description gives no when-to-use vs when-not conditions, no mention of when to prefer get_celestial_body for a single record, and no advice on paginating through large result sets despite the presence of limit/offset parameters.

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