get_next_moon_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'next occurrence(s)' which implies forward-looking temporal behavior, but doesn't disclose rate limits, error conditions, data sources, or output structure (e.g., whether results are sorted chronologically). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., how results are returned, error handling), doesn't explain the relationship with sibling tools, and provides no context on data accuracy or limitations. For a tool with moderate complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying temporal sequencing ('next'). It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'date' and 'count' work together) or format details, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('next occurrence(s) of a specific moon phase'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_moon_phase' (current phase) and 'get_moon_phases_range' (range of phases), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_next_sun_event', which has a similar temporal pattern but different resource.

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 like 'get_moon_phase' (current phase) or 'get_moon_phases_range' (multiple phases over a date range). The description implies usage for future occurrences but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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