get_moon_calendar

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes outputs but uses 'Creates' which may misleadingly imply mutation for a 'get' tool. It does not state that the tool is read-only, does not modify data, or lacks side effects. No safety or authorization context is provided.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second details the output, and the third provides use cases. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description adequately explains the tool's output for a calendar (phases, illumination, events) and lists use cases. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, making it sufficient but not comprehensive. There is no output schema, but the description covers return expectations.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the default location '0,0' or any parameter constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Creates a comprehensive monthly calendar showing moon phases for each day of the month.' It specifies the output (daily phases, illumination, events) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_moon_phase (single day) and predict_moon_phases (future predictions) by focusing on the full month view.

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 provides context with 'Perfect for gardening, fishing, photography planning, or any activities influenced by lunar cycles,' which implies use cases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling tool comparisons are given.

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