Stream Sunrise/Sunset

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description usefully adds the POST endpoint and cost (10 credits, Tier 1), which annotations cannot convey. It does not, however, explain what "stream" means here — single response vs. continuous event feed, or whether the POST triggers a billable stream — leaving the main behavioral question unanswered.

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 core fact is front-loaded in the first clause with zero filler; the bracketed metadata lines are dense and scannable. Slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present the return shape needn't be explained, but the description omits the two things an agent still needs: what coordinates mean (degrees? signed?) and what streaming behavior is expected from a tool whose name and group both say "stream". For a 3-parameter, credit-costing streaming endpoint that is a meaningful gap.

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?

The description only repeats the required parameters ("[Required: latitude, longitude]"); those two have no descriptions in the schema, and the description adds nothing about units, valid ranges, or hemisphere/sign conventions. Only timezoneOffset is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema rather than the description.

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?

"Today + tomorrow sun events" names the resource (sun events) and the time window (today + tomorrow), so an agent knows roughly what comes back. However it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling astroway_western_sun_times or explains what the "stream" qualifier actually adds.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over the many other sun/calendar tools (e.g. astroway_western_sun_times, astroway_calendar_moon_phase, astroway_stream_ingress). The [Group: Real-time Streaming] tag hints at a category but gives no selection rule or exclusion.

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