electional_station_tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat them. It adds useful behavioral context: credit cost, smart defaults (90-day auto-scan), and return contents (exact station times, longitudes, signs). No contradiction exists; a minor ambiguity is the word 'upcoming' when a past start_date could be specified.

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 organized into labeled sections (use cases, not-for, defaults, credit cost, examples), which aids parsing. It is somewhat verbose but each section adds value; there is no fluff, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to extract the key information.

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?

For a read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage boundaries, defaults, cost, and examples. It clearly states what the tool returns (exact station times, longitudes, signs), making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by providing concrete examples with parameter values, explaining default planet selection (Mercury through Saturn) and default date range, and showing a full-parameter example. This meaningfully enhances schema-only definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all upcoming retrograde and direct stations for planets in a date range.' It also lists example queries and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ephemeris_retrograde_status, making its scope unambiguous.

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 includes explicit 'USE THIS TOOL FOR' and 'NOT FOR' sections, naming the alternative tool (ephemeris_retrograde_status) and explaining the credit cost difference. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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