get_moon_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return structure ('Dict with keys "data", "_meta"') which adds some value, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with separate 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be slightly more integrated for better flow.

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, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains what information is returned ('illumination, phase_name, age_days, etc.') and documents parameter formats, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 and 2 parameters, the description compensates well by specifying the format for both parameters ('Date string "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS"' and 'IANA timezone string'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain why both parameters are required or provide examples.

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 with specific verbs ('Get detailed information') and resources ('Moon's phase and position'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_celestial_pos' which might also provide positional data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'get_celestial_pos' or 'get_constellation'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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