ksp_moon_landing_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that this is a side-effect-free read that creates no node and performs no burn. However, it says nothing about prerequisites (must you be in flight?), what the estimate actually contains, or whether the result is a snapshot versus a running plan — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the read-only caveat follows. Efficient, though it spends its brevity on caveats rather than the missing parameter/usage detail.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin: it neither explains the return estimate's contents nor the meaning of four undocumented parameters. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is largely absent.

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 only 20% (just target_body = "Defaults to Mun."), leaving landing_latitude, landing_longitude, target_altitude_m, and parking_altitude_m undocumented anywhere. The description mentions "current-body-to-moon" generically but adds no units, defaults, or meaning for the four undocumented coordinates/altitudes, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and resource (a live-data transfer estimate plus soft-landing handoff), and the read-only/no-burn clause implicitly separates it from siblings like ksp_flight_moon_soft_landing_start and ksp_flight_add_maneuver_node. The jargon "no-visual soft-landing handoff" is a bit opaque, and it never names the siblings it is distinct from, so it lands at a clear-but-not-disambiguating 4.

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: the read-only framing suggests it's a query/preparation step, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternatives named (e.g., versus ksp_flight_transfer_plan for non-landing transfers). The agent has to infer the scenario from the KSP domain context.

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