get_astronomy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the provided data fields, the return dictionary structure, and important timezone behavior ('auto' tries to auto-detect). It could mention read-only nature or potential data limitations, but nothing contradicts the operation.

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 longer than average but well-organized with headings, use cases, examples, and return structure. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each section earns its place even if a few examples could be trimmed.

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 low-complexity tool with three parameters, the description is complete: it explains data provided, use cases, example queries, parameter semantics, and return fields. The output schema exists, and the description covers the relevant return values, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the Args section compensates fully by explaining latitude, longitude, and timezone in meaningful terms, including units and the auto-detect behavior of the default timezone. This adds substantial value beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Provides astronomical data for a location (sunrise, sunset, golden hour)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_weather, get_snow_conditions, and get_air_quality by focusing on astronomy-specific times and photography conditions.

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 clear use cases such as photography location scouting, event planning, and sunrise/sunset viewing, plus concrete example queries. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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