Eme Calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral value beyond that — nothing about how 'least degraded' is computed, what ordering or units the results use, or how the horizon limit interacts with results.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. However, brevity here comes at the cost of substance: the sentence is cryptic rather than front-loaded with actionable information.

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 output schema means return values need not be described, and the input is a single optional parameter. Still, for a tool whose central concept ('least degraded') is never defined and whose purpose is never made explicit, the description leaves an agent unable to predict what it will get or why it would choose it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'days' parameter already documents its default of 30 and 365 cap, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'days ahead' loosely echoes that parameter but adds no format or interpretation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'The least degraded days ahead — when the moon is nearest' is evocative but never states a concrete verb or resource: it does not say whether the tool lists days, scores them, or forecasts an event. It also gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like eme_moon_window or eme_degradation, so an agent must guess which one to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. 'Days ahead' hints at a forward-looking window, but nothing tells the agent when this beats eme_moon_window or eme_degradation for the same question.

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