rhino_direct_irradiance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the specific model employed (Bird + Kasten-Young) and explicitly confirms no document modifications, which reinforces safety. No contradictions.

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 succinct sentences convey the purpose, model, and key parameters. The tag line 'Pure calculation — no doc edits' is efficient. No redundant information.

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 has 6 input parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks details on coordinate system (WGS84 assumption), timezone handling, and the meaning of the return value. The output schema compensates for return structure, but input context remains incomplete.

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 description provides partial parameter context: it explains turbidity (1=very clear, 7=industrial haze) and altitude, which adds value beyond schema titles. However, it does not describe latitude, longitude, timezone, or datetime_iso format, leaving gaps despite schema defaults. Schema coverage is 0%, so compensation is only partial.

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 calculates Direct Normal Irradiance (W/m^2) using the Bird + Kasten-Young model for clear-sky conditions. It explicitly names the output metric (DNI) and differentiates from sibling tools like rhino_daylight_factor or rhino_sun_position.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_solar_exposure_estimate. The description only notes it is a pure calculation without document edits, but does not specify prerequisites or scenarios.

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