estimate_sun_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output includes estimated IU (with cap), average UV, and minutes-to-sunburn. However, it does not mention limitations such as ignoring weather or other factors affecting UV exposure, which would improve transparency for a simulation tool.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy. It efficiently covers what, how, and when to use the tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes return values (IU, UV, minutes-to-sunburn). It covers all input parameters and defaults. For a moderately complex model with 10 parameters, it is largely complete, though could mention the output structure more explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it explains defaults (startTime defaults to best hour, skinType defaults to 3) and provides concrete examples for exposedSkinFraction (0.10 face+hands, etc.), which aids interpretation beyond parameter descriptions alone.

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 specifies the tool estimates two outcomes: vitamin D production (with physiological cap) and time to burn. It explicitly relates to 'how much vitamin D did I make?' and 'how long before I'd burn?', differentiating it from sibling tools like get_vitamin_d_window and get_vitamin_d_year which focus on broader time frames.

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 explicitly states 'Use for any 'how much did I get / can I get in X minutes' or 'how long without burning' question.' While it does not list when not to use, the context implies it is for single session estimation, and sibling tool names provide alternative use cases.

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