get_sun_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'other sun event times' includes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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 purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a read-only tool. It specifies the action and inputs but lacks details on output format (beyond parameter hints), error cases, or behavioral context. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output documentation, it should provide more guidance on what to expect.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'other sun event times' or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get sun rise/set and other sun event times for a specific date and location'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('sun rise/set and other sun event times'), and scope ('for a specific date and location'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_sun_times_range', which might handle date ranges rather than single dates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sun_times_range' (for date ranges) or 'get_next_sun_event' (for next event), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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