target_info

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context: the ephemeris daily/yearly mode distinction and the fuzzy-match fallback when an exact name fails, which is valuable for predicting results.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then ephemeris modes, then fallback behavior. No filler, though the ephemeris note is terse and relies on the reader inferring argument usage.

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 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers only purpose, ephemeris, and fuzzy fallback. Half a dozen location/date/time parameters remain unexplained, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly without guessing.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but only explains the ephemeris value semantics (daily vs yearly). lat, lon, date, timezone, and name semantics are left entirely undocumented, so the gap is not compensated.

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 verb+resource: retrieves one named target with tonight's visibility windows, with concrete examples ("IC 1805", "Heart Nebula"). Distinguishes it implicitly from search_targets by specifying a SINGLE named target, but never names the sibling it is not.

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 implied rather than explicit: you fetch info for one specific target, unlike search_targets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects it over search_targets, sky_times, or tonight_highlights, and no exclusions.

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