chronolocate_sun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost nothing. It does not disclose the expected time format/timezone, precision or algorithm basis, or what the returned position consists of (azimuth/elevation/sunrise/sunset). As a pure computation this is low-risk, but essentially nothing beyond the name is communicated.

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?

A single short phrase with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. There is no front-loaded statement of what the caller gets back.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at minimum describe the computed result and the expected time convention. For a three-parameter calculation tool with no other documentation, the definition leaves the most important call-time details unspecified.

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 0% across three required parameters. 'lat' and 'lon' are self-explanatory by convention, but 'time' is ambiguous (ISO 8601? UTC vs local? unix epoch?) and the description adds no clarification. With zero coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('sun position'), which is enough for an agent to know this computes solar geometry rather than anything else. The trailing 'for verification' adds a fuzzy intent rather than scope. Siblings are in unrelated domains (sanctions, CVE, IoC), so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

'For verification' hints at a use case but never says when to call this versus alternatives or what is being verified (timestamps? geolocation claims? evidence consistency?). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no workflow context are given.

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