edsm_system_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and does not state that the operation is read-only, whether any authentication or rate limits apply, or how errors (e.g., unknown system) are handled.

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 short and front-loads the returned data, but it is a fragmented, slash-delimited phrase rather than a well-structured sentence. It avoids waste but is under-specified for the tool's scope.

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-value details need not be fully described. However, the description omits usage context relative to its many siblings and provides no parameter format guidance, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 is one required parameter (system_name) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify its format, case sensitivity, or accepted values. It only implies 'one system', which is insufficient to compensate for the undocumented 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 names a specific resource (one system) and enumerates the data returned (population, government, stations, claimable assessment), so the agent knows what it does. However, it does not differentiate this tool from EDSM sibling edsm_sphere_systems or the generic spansh_query_systems, leaving ambiguity about which to choose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The phrase 'for one system' implies a single-system lookup but does not help the agent decide between this and the many other system/stations tools.

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