moon_void_of_course

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default range behavior (now through +90 days), optional parameter omission semantics, and timezone defaults. It does not discuss rate limits or output format, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage examples, then defaults, then an Args section with each parameter clearly described. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 read-only list tool with 3 optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, defaults, and timezone handling. The output schema exists, so return values need not be repeated. This is complete.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: start/end of range, ISO 8601 format, defaults, and what omission means. This goes well beyond the schemas' bare property names.

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 'Void-of-Course Moon windows', defines the concept, and scopes it to a date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like moon_phases or moon_current.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when the user asks...' with concrete example queries, providing strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it misses the full 5 criterion.

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