solar_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool lists events (read-only), defaults to now through +90 days, and returns timestamps localized to an IANA timezone. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication, but for a simple read-only list tool this is adequate.

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 and usage trigger, followed by a concise Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan for an agent.

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 tool with 3 params, an output schema, no required params, and clear defaults, this description is nearly complete. It could briefly contrast with the 'sabbats' tool to prevent confusion, but the core information needed for correct selection and invocation is present.

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 must fully compensate. It explains each parameter (from_date, to_date, tz) with examples, defaults, and important semantic details like 'Omit for starting now' and 'Omit for 90 days from the start.' This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 identifies the exact resources: solstices, equinoxes, and cross-quarter days. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like moon_phases and sabbats, which cover different astronomical/calendar events.

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 provides explicit 'Use this when' guidance with concrete user queries ('when is the next equinox?') and describes the default behavior when no range is supplied. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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