get_astronomy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It's a read/compute operation but the description doesn't state whether it requires network time, whether it returns local or UTC times, what units/format results come in, or any edge cases (polar regions with no rise/set). It's a moderate gap for a compute tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the verb 'Compute' followed by the full scope of outputs and inputs. No filler or redundancy. Could be slightly more thorough given the listed outputs, but it earns its single sentence.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry substantial weight. It lists five astronomy outputs, which gives good scope, but doesn't describe return format, timezone handling, or edge cases. For a tool with this many distinct output categories and zero structured support, a bit more detail would be warranted.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 3 undocumented parameters. It does name the inputs ('coordinates' and 'ISO date/time'), clarifying that latitude/longitude are the coordinates and dateTime is an ISO date-time. This maps meaningfully to the parameters, though it doesn't add per-parameter format conventions beyond the schema's own format field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and lists the resources covered (moon phase/rise/set, golden hour, blue hour, astronomical darkness) plus the inputs (coordinates and ISO date/time). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_sky_timeline or assess_dark_sky, which may overlap with celestial computations.

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 implies this is used for astronomy/light calculations at a location, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling tools. Closers like get_sky_timeline or assess_dark_sky could overlap, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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