get_planet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a safe read via 'Get detailed information,' which is consistent behavior. However, it discloses nothing about return payload, whether expansion-scoped results differ, or error behavior for unknown IDs.

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 zero filler, well sized for a simple lookup tool. It is arguably too terse to earn full marks, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema needs only modest description support, and this covers the core purpose. Still, 'detailed information' is unhelpfully vague — it doesn't hint at planet traits (resources, influence, tech specialty, legendary status) or how the expansions parameter changes the result.

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 100%: both planet_id (with examples) and the expansions list with its default behavior are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, casing, or expansion-resolution detail beyond 'by ID', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information about a TI4 planet') and specifies the lookup key ('by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_planets. It does not, however, explicitly name its closest sibling (e.g., get_system) to clarify 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 by the name: an agent can infer this is the single-planet detail lookup versus list_planets for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to get_system despite the sibling set containing overlapping concepts.

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