get_moon_influence

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

With no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it provides recommendations and detailed explanations based on traditional beliefs, and is non-destructive. However, it could be more explicit about read-only nature and absence of side effects.

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 well-structured and informative with four sentences, each adding value. A slight reduction in redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'detailed explanations' twice) could improve conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (recommendations and detailed explanations) and covers the complexity of lunar influence. It provides enough context for an agent to decide if it's the right 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds some context (date format, activity type examples) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 analyzes moon phase influence on activities with specific examples (e.g., new moons for beginnings, full moons for completion). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_moon_phase by focusing on recommendations and detailed explanations.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to get lunar influence for activities) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context of siblings implies usage for decision support rather than just phase retrieval.

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