Get Next Sun Event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the forward-searching notion of 'next occurrence(s)', and says nothing about timezone defaulting or how count interacts with the starting date. Adequate but thin beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, and the usage examples come second. The inline enumeration of all thirteen event names is somewhat redundant given the schema enum and costs length, but it is at least a single readable block rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to establish purpose and domain, which it does. The missing piece is routing versus astro_get_sun_times/astro_get_sun_position, which is a real but modest gap for a 7-parameter read-only query 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% with bounds, defaults, enum values and formats all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description's one added nuance, that date is a 'starting date' for a forward search, is already conveyed by the parameter description ('Search start date'), so it adds little.

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 ('Find') and resource ('next occurrence(s) of a sun event') and enumerates all thirteen event values, so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling astro_get_sun_times (all sun events for a day) or astro_get_sun_position, so the boundary between 'next event' and 'sun times' is left to inference.

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 scenarios ("when is sunset today?", golden-hour photography, dawn fishing around tide windows) and even links it to the NOAA tide siblings. It provides clear positive context but no exclusions or disambiguation against astro_get_sun_times, which is the closest competing tool.

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