sunrise_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame and references a specific data source URL, plus a caution about input format. However, it does not disclose timezone handling, supported city scope, or data availability nuances. No contradiction with annotations.

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 structured as a docstring with a title, source URL, parameter definitions, and return type. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core title. The URL occupies a line but adds useful source context. No unnecessary filler, though the URL could be seen as extra.

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 provides date format, city examples, and return type. However, it lacks an explicit list of supported cities, a clear city format specification, and any note about the data being China-specific. This leaves the city parameter ambiguous and could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It clearly specifies date format with example '20200428', but city format is ambiguous: description examples use Chinese ('北京', '上海') while the schema default is pinyin ('beijing'). The warning '注意输入的格式' does not clarify which format is expected. No list of valid cities or enums is provided.

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 that it returns daily sunrise/sunset data for a specified date and city, with a title '每日日出日落数据' and an explicit return statement. It distinguishes from the sibling sunrise_monthly by specifying '每日' (daily). However, it lacks a strong action verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', and the first line is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of sunrise_monthly or any other related tools, nor any context on suitable use cases. It only covers parameter formats, not usage scenarios.

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