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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it describes the content type (alerts with deadlines, affected components, source links), the filter levels, and sorting behavior (most severe and most recent first). It implies a read-only, safe operation without destructive side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or pagination details, the schema covers pagination, and the description provides substantial behavioral context.

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 a compact three-sentence structure with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then filter capability, then usage triggers. Every sentence earns its place, and the flow is logical.

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?

Complete for a relatively simple read-only tool. The description covers what the tool returns, how to filter, and when to use it. The input schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema exists but the description mentions the return fields (deadline, affected components, source link). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It only restates the level enum values, but the schema already provides full details for level, limit, and offset. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting; the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 the tool retrieves the Celestia Radar, a curated feed of time-sensitive ecosystem alerts. It specifies the resource (Radar), the verb (Get), and differentiates it from siblings like get_breaking_changes or get_network_state. The scope is unique and immediately understandable.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when a user asks what's changing, what's about to break, or what deadlines are approaching on Celestia.' It gives clear conditions for when to invoke, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Still, the guidance is actionable and specific.

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