get_eclipse_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the requirement for the swisseph engine and the null return in AstraCore mode, but does not address other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous words. The critical info (purpose, return fields, engine dependency) is front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured but effectively concise.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a behavioral caveat, but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or examples. Adequate for a simple detail retrieval tool with sibling differentiation from context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (kind, datetime). The description adds value by listing the return fields, but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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's action ('Détail d'une éclipse') and lists the specific return fields (magnitude, obscuration, type, Saros series). It distinguishes itself from sibling astrological tools which focus on planets, moon phases, etc.

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 usage for known eclipse dates and notes engine dependency (swisseph, returns null in AstraCore), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.

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