ephemeris_electional

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it scans every hour, clusters windows, and includes a credit cost of 5 credits per call with 'heavy calculation'. It also details the scoring criteria. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint with meaningful operational specifics.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear definition sentence, a credit-cost note, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the example is practical without being verbose.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain the main behavior. It covers the input criteria, scanning method, clustering, and cost. It lacks explicit return structure details, but the mention of 'clusters the best continuous windows' gives a reasonable picture.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The example in the description adds a concrete illustration of parameter usage (dates, lat/long, avoid_voc, lunar_phase), which helps clarify how parameters combine beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 'Find optimal planetary timing windows' with specific criteria (essential dignity, aspect quality, sect, void-of-course moon penalties). It distinguishes from siblings like ephemeris_transits or electional_moment_analysis by emphasizing scanning a date range and clustering windows.

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 gives a concrete example ('Find the best time to launch a business in early March 2026') that illustrates when to use the tool. It implies usage for event timing over a range, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like electional_moment_analysis.

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