get_vitamin_d_year

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

With no annotations, the description explains the output structure and each field's meaning (viable days, solid months, exact season boundaries, aggregates). It does not disclose potential costs or data freshness, but covers the core behavior sufficiently.

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?

Three focused sentences: first introduces the tool, second details output fields, third gives usage guidance. No wasted words; each sentence carries essential 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?

The description covers output fields and usage context well. However, with no output schema, the description could include more structural details (types, examples) to fully describe the complex return object, but it is still quite complete for an experienced user.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 provides the whole year of solar vitamin D for a location, listing key output fields (monthsWithSun, solidMonths, exactViableSpan, summary). It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_vitamin_d_window by explicitly indicating when not to use that tool.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('any question about months, seasons, winter/summer') and when not to ('never probe individual dates'), directly naming the alternative tool get_vitamin_d_window.

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