grid_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool converts grids and computes solar elevation, with a classification output. Although it does not detail edge cases or validation, the description is transparent about its core behavior and is not contradictory.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the main purpose and then explains optional parameters. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (grid conversion and solar calculation), the description covers both functions adequately. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. The mention of day/twilight/night classification completes the 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between month and day_of_year (fallback logic) and the purpose of the hour parameter. This exceeds the baseline expectation for a fully described schema.

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 the tool decodes a Maidenhead grid to lat/lon and optionally computes solar elevation. It specifies input formats (4-char or 6-char) and the optional parameters for solar calculation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like band_openings or solar_correlation, which serve different purposes.

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 explains when to use optional parameters (hour, month, day_of_year) for solar elevation computation. It implicitly suggests when not to use them (if only lat/lon is needed). However, it does not explicitly exclude usage scenarios or provide alternatives among siblings.

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