get_eclipse_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that Sutak is provided for visible eclipses only, that the range is capped at 730 days, and that timezone is derived if omitted. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema shows. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but those are not clearly needed here.

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: purpose first, then entry contents, then constraints and argument syntax. Every sentence adds necessary information without padding. The max-range constraint and argument instructions are clearly front-loaded after the core purpose.

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 6-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential invocation details: date range, city/coordinate options, timezone behavior, max range, and the composition of each returned eclipse entry. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. The only minor gap is explicit guidance about sibling-tool selection, but the context is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it specifies date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), explains that city can be replaced by latitude+longitude, and clarifies timezone derivation when omitted. It does not explicitly mention the city default (Hyderabad) or the exact names of latitude/longitude parameters, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all solar and lunar eclipses in a date range with per-city visibility and Sutak timing.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling astrological tools by naming the exact domain (eclipses), the output granularity (per-city), and the unique Sutak timing component.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when solar/lunar eclipse data with visibility and Sutak timing is needed for a date range and city. It also states a concrete usage constraint ('Max range: 730 days'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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