get_sun_times_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'other sun event times' includes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 without unnecessary words. Every element ('Get,' 'sun rise/set and other sun event times,' 'date range and location') earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters indirectly, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 (e.g., date formats, latitude/longitude ranges, timezone default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'date range and location,' which aligns with the required parameters. 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 date range and location.' It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('sun rise/set and other sun event times'), and scope ('date range and location'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sun_times' or 'get_next_sun_event', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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' (likely for a single date) or 'get_next_sun_event' (likely for the next event), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the parameters 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.