rhino_sun_position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds 'no doc edits', reinforcing safety but not providing additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core purpose and a key behavioral trait efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It names the outputs (azimuth+altitude) and clarifies the non-modifying behavior, which is sufficient for a simple calculation tool among many siblings.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics (e.g., meaning of azimuth/altitude, coordinate system, or units). While parameters like latitude and datetime_iso are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add value 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 the tool computes solar azimuth and altitude for a given location and time. The phrase 'Pure calculation, no doc edits' distinguishes it from sibling tools that might modify documents or perform more complex analyses like sun path or shadow projection.

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 implies usage for simple sun position queries and explicitly states it is a pure calculation with no document edits, which guides safe use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for more advanced solar analysis.

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