cosmic_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a merged, chronological feed, includes all event types, and adds a human-readable headline. It also details the 'days' and 'tz' behavior. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only aggregation tool, the behavioral context is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the 'FLAGSHIP tool' label. It opens with a clear purpose, then provides usage guidance, then parameter details. Each sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundancy. It is longer than minimal but earns its length through rich guidance.

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 of a combined feed covering multiple event types, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters behave, and the nature of the output (merged chronological feed plus headline). The presence of an output schema means return values need not be spelled out, and the description fills all critical gaps.

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 compensates fully. It explains 'days': 'How many days ahead to include, starting from now. Defaults to 7. Use larger values (e.g. 30) for "this month" style questions.' It explains 'tz': 'IANA timezone name for event timestamps and local-time labeling. Defaults to "UTC".' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'get a single merged, chronological cosmic weather feed combining every event type.' It uses a specific verb (get), a specific resource (cosmic weather feed), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the default/first tool for broad questions. It explicitly contrasts with tools scoped to one event type.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this as the default/first tool when the user asks broad questions...' It gives concrete examples and states that it is the 'richest single call' and 'usually answers the question without needing any other tool.' It implies when not to use it (when the query is scoped to one event type), effectively covering alternatives.

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