event_highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds two pieces of real context beyond that: the result count range (1-50) and that returned events carry local visibility flags. It stops short of explaining how 'local' is determined when no location parameter exists.

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 notable/upcoming qualifiers come first and the count range and output flag are packed into a tight parenthetical.

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 zero-required-param, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It leaves open the time window for 'upcoming' and how 'local visibility' is resolved without a location input, and gives no differentiation from the near-identical sibling tools.

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 0% — 'limit' is a bare integer with only a default of 10. The description supplies the missing bound (1-50), which the schema lacks entirely, and contextually ties it to the number of events returned. It does not state what happens on out-of-range input.

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 ('the most notable upcoming sky events') with a scope qualifier ('upcoming', 'most notable') and the response content ('local visibility flags'). This separates it loosely from tonight_highlights, but it never names or contrasts with the 13 siblings that overlap heavily (astro_events, tonight_highlights), so an agent must guess at routing.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The description gives no signal for choosing this over tonight_highlights or astro_events, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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