Solar Wind

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (DSCOVR at L1, ~1.5M km sunward) and an interpretive note on Bz, but says nothing about update cadence, latency, staleness, or what happens if the feed is down—relevant for a 'real-time' tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity and scope, then the fields, then the one interpretive fact an agent actually needs ('southward Bz drives geomagnetic storms'). No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers source, fields, and meaning of Bz. The only gap is operational context—refresh rate/freshness of the 'real-time' feed—which matters for a zero-parameter live-data tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is complete by construction. The description correctly spends its words on the data payload instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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 ('Get real-time DSCOVR L1 solar wind data') and enumerates the three quantities returned (Bz, speed, proton density), which helps distinguish it from solar_conditions and solar_forecast. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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: 'real-time' and 'L1' signal this is the current-conditions snapshot rather than a forecast, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to solar_conditions/solar_forecast. The agent must reason about sibling boundaries unaided.

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