Get Next Moon Phase Occurrence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds domain context (spring tides lag new/full moons by 1-2 days) but says nothing about defaults, the 24-count ceiling, computational behavior, or edge cases beyond what annotations provide.

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 tight sentences: the core action is front-loaded, followed by a compact 'Use for' block with zero redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description needn't explain parameters or return values, and it doesn't overreach. The only shortfall is the missing sibling differentiation from astro_get_moon_phase, which is a modest gap for a simple read-only tool.

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% and an output schema exists, so both phases, the date default, the count bounds, and response_format are already documented structurally. The description only loosely echoes these via 'date(s)' and 'occurrence(s)', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: finding the date(s) of the next occurrence of a named principal moon phase from a start date, enumerating the four phases. This is clear and actionable, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling astro_get_moon_phase (likely current-phase), leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 'Use for:' line gives concrete triggering questions ('when is the next full moon?') and a planning scenario (spring tides following new/full moons by 1-2 days). However, no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative (e.g., use astro_get_moon_phase for the current phase) is provided.

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