moon_current

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the 'current' nature and the timezone handling, but it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., invalid timezone), side effects, or affirm read-only safety. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose sentence, usage examples, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient contextual coverage. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and the one parameter's meaning, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

The schema only provides the parameter name, type, and default value. The description adds a detailed explanation of tz, including its purpose for timestamps, concrete timezone examples, and the default 'UTC'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Moon's CURRENT (right-now) position and phase', and enumerates the exact data fields (zodiac sign, ecliptic longitude, phase name, illumination percentage). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'right-now' and contrasting with future/past dates.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with sample user queries and adds the exclusion 'not a future/past date'. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool, so it lacks the full 'alternatives' component required for a 5.

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