constellation_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include altitude, azimuth, and constellation, that time defaults to now, and that place takes precedence over coordinates. However, it does not state read-only safety, data source, precision, or error behavior for unknown place names.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence followed by a concise Args block. Every sentence provides useful invocation information without filler.

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 complexity, lack of annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is largely complete for invocation. It explains the returned quantities and defaults, but does not describe the exact response structure or error handling for invalid place names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents latitude/longitude examples, the known-table place parameter and its priority over coordinates, and the UTC time format with current-time default. It does not specify coordinate ranges or enumerate valid place names, preventing a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns positions (altitude, azimuth, constellation) of the Sun, Moon, and planets for a given observing location and time. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from likely siblings such as solar_system_now or sky_map_with_satellites.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the large sibling set. It only documents parameter precedence and defaults, not use-case selection or exclusions.

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