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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly describes the tool as an estimation but does not disclose assumptions (e.g., hemisphere, daylight saving time) or accuracy limits. It is not misleading, but could be enhanced with more 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 concise with two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and inputs, and the second provides a pointer to related tools. Every word is valuable with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 required parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema likely covers that. A minor gap is the lack of mention of hemisphere or daylight saving adjustments, but this does not significantly impair usability.

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?

All three parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond listing them. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the necessary work.

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 action ('estimate') and the resource ('effective daily sunlight hours for a garden') and specifies the input variables (latitude, month, orientation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_sun_exposure or calculate_sunrise_sunset, which serve different purposes.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for estimating garden sunlight hours) and directs the user to list_bundles for related 'jardinage' calculators, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar calculations (e.g., calculate_sun_exposure for general sun exposure).

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