astro_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results are 'computed for home' (fixed observer location), but does not explain what 'home' resolves to or whether location can vary, and gives no sense of the returned item shape or ordering.

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 event list, the temporal window, and the location caveat are all packed economically. Slightly dense but appropriately sized.

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 calendar tool with no output schema, the description should convey what an entry looks like and clarify the unexplained `max_conjunction_deg` parameter. It covers the core range/default semantics well but leaves one parameter and the return shape unspecified.

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 carries the parameter burden. It documents `days` with its 7-365 bound and `date` with its default, which is genuinely beyond the schema, but leaves `max_conjunction_deg` completely unexplained despite it being an opaque tuning knob.

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 resource ('astronomical calendar') with the event types it covers (conjunctions, occultations, moon phases, showers) and the temporal scope (next `days` from `date`). This clearly differentiates it from point-in-time siblings like tonight_highlights or sky_times, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Implies usage through the range/default ('next `days` (7-365) from `date` (default today)'), which tells the agent how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no distinction drawn against closely related siblings like event_highlights or tonight_highlights.

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