sun_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe, or idempotent. While displaying a card suggests read-only behavior, this is not stated, leaving gaps for an agent to assess side effects or permissions.

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 consists of two concise sentences without any redundant information. Every word adds value, stating the tool's purpose and the specific data it displays.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the displayed data. However, it does not mention the behavior for invalid city inputs or the nature of the interactive card. This is a minor gap; for a straightforward tool it is nearly 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter 'city'. The tool description adds 'for nearby locations' which is consistent but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 'Show an interactive Aare sun and sunshine card' and lists specific data points (total sunshine hours, sunset time, time-left-in-sun). This verb+resource structure is distinct from sibling tools like temperature_card or weather_card, which cover different weather aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. Agents must infer usage solely from the listed output fields.

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