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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral details about the data returned (times, elevation, duration) and scope (next 3 days, city directory). No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific details. Every sentence adds value and there is no waste.

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 the single parameter, absence of output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its constraints (next 3 days, supported cities). No gaps.

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 single parameter 'city' has 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (examples, 550+ cities), 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 the tool's purpose: showing when the ISS will pass over a city in the next 3 days, including start time, elevation, duration, and viewing window. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (launch news, next launches) by focusing on pass times.

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 when to use (for ISS pass times for a city) and provides context (next 3 days, 550+ cities). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools cover launches and news, making the usage clear.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the type of content (previews and recaps) but does not introduce new behavioral traits. No contradictions with annotations.

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 single 14-word sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, source, and optional filter. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity, no required parameters, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It informs about the source and content type, but lacks details about the return structure (e.g., fields in each article). However, this is not critical for a basic news retrieval tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for both 'limit' and 'query'. The description reinforces the query parameter by specifying it filters by 'mission, rocket, or provider name', adding value beyond the schema that only mentions matching article titles. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 'Latest rocket-launch news articles (previews and post-launch recaps) from Cosmik' with optional search filter. It is specific about the resource (news articles) and distinguishes from siblings like get_next_launches and get_iss_passes, which provide different launch data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. While the names and content imply that this is for news articles and get_next_launches for schedules, there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Usage is partially implied but not fully articulated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the response includes 'liftoff times (UTC), pads, status and a live-tracking link', which are behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential purpose and includes key details. No extraneous words; each part adds value.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the optional filtering. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and provider). The description mentions 'optionally filter by provider/rocket name' but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 provides a 'Live schedule of upcoming orbital rocket launches' with specific detail fields (times, pads, status, link). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_iss_passes (ISS passes) and get_launch_news (launch news).

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 use when a user wants upcoming launch schedules and optionally filter by provider or rocket name. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the sibling differentiation and optional filter give sufficient context.

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