Eclipses

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns 'type, date, and geographic visibility data', which is useful but does not elaborate on limits, authentication, or behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is very concise: one sentence for purpose, plus group tag, cost, and an example. It is well-structured with each element in its own line, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns, required input, and an example. Minor gaps exist for default behavior and valid input ranges, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example with year=2024 and yearsRange=2, illustrating the use of yearsRange as an offset. However, it does not explain valid values, default behavior, or meaning of null for yearsRange. The example adds some meaning but is not comprehensive.

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 finds solar and lunar eclipses within a year or multi-year range, with a specific verb ('Find') and resource. It is distinguished from siblings like 'eclipse_analysis' and 'stream_eclipse_incoming' by focusing on data retrieval rather than analysis or streaming.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Calendar & Cycles' group, there is no mention of when not to use or which sibling to prefer. The large sibling list includes similar tools like 'eclipse_analysis' and 'stream_eclipse_incoming', but no comparative guidance is provided.

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