Moon Aspects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it calculates both applying and separating aspects, which is consistent with annotations. No contradictory or missing behavioral information.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by group and cost labels, and an example. Every part is front-loaded and serves a clear function without redundancy.

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?

The description provides purpose, usage, and an example, but lacks details about the output format or any additional behavioral notes. For a simple tool with annotations, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'year' and 'month' parameters beyond the example request body. The purpose implies a date range, but explicit parameter meaning is absent.

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 calculates all aspects the Moon makes within a date range, including both applying and separating aspects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aspects' (general) and 'horary_moon_aspects' (specific to horary).

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 indicates the tool is useful for electional and horary work, with a Group tag 'Calendar & Cycles'. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to determine appropriate use cases.

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