Solar System Bodies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds context about the data source, license, and number of bodies (1,400+), which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, return fields, scope, filter, source). No wasted words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description covers what is listed, the filter, and source/license. However, it does not mention pagination, default ordering, or max results, which could be useful for a list of 1,400+ bodies.

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?

The input schema fully describes the body_type parameter with enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds 'Filter by type' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states it lists solar system bodies, enumerates types (planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dwarf planets), and mentions return fields (name, body type, gravity, radius, moon count). It distinguishes from the sibling 'solar.system.body_details' by being a list vs details.

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?

The description implies usage when wanting a list of bodies and mentions filtering by type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'solar.system.body_details'.

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