moon_sign_ingresses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses important behaviors: defaults to now through +90 days, ISO 8601 date formats, and timezone handling. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the disclosed defaults are valuable 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage examples and defaults. The Args section is clearly structured and concise. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with three optional parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, and default behaviors. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so nothing critical is missing.

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% (the schema itself has no property descriptions), but the tool description fully compensates with an Args section. It explains each parameter's meaning, format (ISO 8601), examples, omit behavior, and timezone default. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('List') and resource ('Moon zodiac sign ingress events'), defines exactly what constitutes an ingress (the moment the Moon moves from one sign into the next), and provides example user queries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like moon_phases and moon_void_of_course.

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 'Use this when...' and gives concrete user-phrase examples, making the primary use case clear. It also explains default date-range behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use this tool, though the specificity inherently differentiates it from siblings.

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