solarsystem_bodies

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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, default result count when 'limit' is omitted, ordering, or what a result entry looks like. For a zero-annotation tool this is a thin disclosure.

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 included categories come first. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness for a list tool leaves little room for the routing and behavior hints an agent would benefit from.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), so the description is close to adequate. Still missing are default-limit behavior and differentiation from the singular 'solarsystem_body' sibling, which an agent needs to route correctly.

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 both 'limit' and 'filter' are already documented in the schema, including the accepted body-type values. The parenthetical in the description loosely maps to the filter concept but adds no syntax, default, or range detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('solar system bodies') and enumerates the included categories (planets, moons, asteroids, comets), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'solarsystem_body' (singular), leaving the list-vs-single retrieval boundary implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to reach for this tool versus 'solarsystem_body' or any other astronomy sibling, nor under what conditions the filter should be applied.

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