divine_get_month_sunrise_sunset_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. It does clarify the monthly scope, but that is already evident from the name and parameters. No extra disclosure beyond the annotations is given.

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 brief and directly to the point, using two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second clarifies the output scope. There is no fluff or repetition, though it could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return formats. It covers the key aspects: what data is returned (sunrise/sunset times), for what period (each day of a specified month), and for what location (given location). It does not mention the deprecated parameters, but the schema already does. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function without needing additional context.

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 schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (lat, lon, year, month, place, tzone) and even flags deprecated fields (day, lan). The tool description does not mention any parameter details, but the schema carries the semantic weight. Since schema_description_coverage is 0% (meaning the description covers none of the parameters), the description does not compensate, but the schema is sufficient, so a 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: 'Get daily sunrise and sunset times for a given month.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (daily sunrise/sunset times), and the scope (for a given month at a given location). This distinguishes it from the many sibling astrology tools, as it focuses on a distinct astronomical data set.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning related tools like divine_get_sun_moon or divine_get_panchang, nor does it offer any exclusionary conditions. An agent would have to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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