get_celestial_pos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether calculations are approximate vs precise, what coordinate system is used, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a calculation tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return format - all in minimal sentences. Every element earns its place with no redundancy. The Args/Returns sections are appropriately formatted.

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 calculation complexity and 5 parameters with no annotations, the description does well with parameter semantics and output explanation. However, it lacks context about calculation methods, precision, or limitations. The presence of an output schema (implied by Returns section) helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 5 parameters: object name examples, coordinate units (degrees), time format, and timezone standard. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific verb 'calculate' and the exact resource 'altitude and azimuth angles of a celestial object'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_celestial_rise_set' (rise/set times) and 'get_constellation' (constellation identification) by focusing on positional calculations.

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 implies usage when altitude/azimuth calculations are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like 'get_visible_planets' or 'get_celestial_rise_set'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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