mrs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or the valid year range (contradicts schema default). The description includes a non-schema parameter 'dataType' and an example with year 2025, but the schema restricts years to 2018-2024, causing confusion and lack of transparency.

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 verbose, repeating parameter explanations already present in the schema. It includes a redundant parameter list and a URL example that could be shortened. The essential purpose is not front-loaded; the first line just restates the tool name. Much content is not 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 no output schema, the description should explain the return values, but it does not. It also fails to clarify the 'dataType' parameter present in the example but absent from the input schema. The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations; the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the complete behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it repeats parameter details and provides an example. While the example may clarify formatting, it does not enhance semantic understanding of parameters. No additional constraints or interpretations are 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 'Times of Moonrise/Moonset' and provides an API request example, indicating it retrieves moonrise/moonset times. However, it lacks a specific action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and the title is missing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'srs' (sunrise/sunset) implicitly by focusing on moon data.

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 such as 'srs' for sunrise/sunset. It does not mention any prerequisites, recommended use cases, or conditions under which this tool should be avoided. The sibling context is completely ignored.

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