Qadir

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. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the returned counts (masjids, halal places), but says nothing about result ordering, result limits, or fuzzy vs exact matching behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the returned counts are appended without redundancy. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition covers what is searched and what comes back (counts), which is close to what an agent needs. It stops short of explaining whether results carry identifiers usable by sibling tools or how many matches are returned, minor gaps at this complexity level.

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 100% and the single 'query' parameter is documented with concrete examples ("dallas tx", "london ontario"). The description adds only that matching spans cities, counties and metros, which complements the schema but does not add syntax, casing or matching-rule details.

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 names the resource precisely (cities, counties and metros on Qadir) and the operation (matching a name), plus the payload each result carries (masjid and halal place counts). It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but an agent can still tell it resolves place names rather than returning masjids or food directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: as a name-matching lookup whose results include counts, an agent can infer it is a discovery/entry point, likely used to resolve a place before calling masjids or halal_food. There is no explicit 'use this when', no statement of when not to use it, and no mention of the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the result ordering ('strongest halal evidence first') and the freshness of the data ('today's hours and whether each is open now'), which tells the agent how results are ranked and that hours may be stale outside today.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource type and following with ranking and freshness details an agent needs. Every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe ordering and per-result hours/open status, which covers the main return-shape question. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior when limit is hit and how evidence ranking is computed, but nothing blocking for a simple read tool.

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 100%, with city, kind enum, limit and open_now all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'in a city' and 'open now' phrasing echoes what the schema already states and adds no format or edge-case detail such as how city paths resolve.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: halal restaurants, markets and butchers within a city, ranked by halal evidence strength. Clear enough that an agent knows what it returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling is_chain_halal, which also concerns halal verification.

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?

Usage is implied by the required city parameter and the kind/open_now filters, so an agent can infer a city-scoped browse. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of find_city for resolving city paths or of is_chain_halal for single-chain checks.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add provenance and data-quality behavior instead: times come from each masjid's own posted board, the read date is returned, and masjids lacking a current board are counted rather than estimated. That 'never estimated' disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral trait annotations cannot express.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads what is returned, then appends provenance, freshness, and the no-estimation policy. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the freshness signal (board read date) and coverage policy an agent needs to interpret results honestly. It stops short of saying what a result entry contains or whether masjids with no board still appear in the payload versus only in a count.

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 city parameter is already documented with both name and path forms, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the notion of city scope, not format or resolution behavior, so the baseline of 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 description uses a specific verb-and-resource framing: today's iqamah (congregation) times for masjids in a city, and it glosses 'iqamah' so an agent can distinguish it from general prayer times. It never names the obvious alternative siblings (prayer_times, jumuah_times), so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

'Today's' implies the temporal scope, and the masjid-board framing implies this is the source for congregation start times rather than adhan times. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over prayer_times or jumuah_times, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description does add return-shape context (location count and halal evidence per location), but it never explains what counts as "evidence" or how a chain is resolved when names are ambiguous.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the shape of the answer. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers both the decision it makes and the evidence it returns. What is missing is minor: how match ambiguity on chain names is handled and what the possible verdicts are.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including a maxLength and two concrete examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no matching behavior or normalization guidance beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific determination (whether a chain serves halal food) plus what the answer includes: location count and per-location halal evidence. The word "chain" implicitly separates it from the location-level halal_food sibling, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. The chain-level framing implies this is for brand-wide questions rather than a single address, but an agent must guess that halal_food is the alternative for one specific restaurant.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely behavioral facts — the result window ('this week') and sort order ('earliest first') — but leaves the week boundary undefined and says nothing about behavior when a city is unknown or has no Jumu'ah listings.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and appends scope and ordering with no filler. Every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns, for which city, over what window, and in what order. Minor remaining gap: whether results span multiple masjids or include khutbah start times, which matters given the khutbahs sibling.

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 schema description already explains the 'Anaheim, CA' vs '/anaheim-ca' formats. The description's phrase 'in a city' adds nothing beyond the parameter itself, so the baseline of 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 description names a specific resource (Friday/Jumu'ah prayer times) plus scope (masjids in a city) and result ordering (earliest first). It distinguishes itself from prayer_times and iqamah_times only by implication through the word 'Jumu'ah'/'Friday' — it never names those siblings, so an agent has to infer the split.

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 word 'Friday' implies the usage occasion, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over prayer_times, iqamah_times or khutbahs, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering ('newest first') and regional scope, but does not describe pagination behavior or what a returned khutbah includes.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that packs resource, scope, ordering, and optional filters with no wasted wording. An agent can parse the key information immediately.

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, read-only list tool with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential scope, ordering, and filters. It does not describe returned khutbah fields or pagination, but no output schema exists and the main call requirements are otherwise clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the topic and city filters but adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as matching semantics for query or path formatting for city; limit is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 resource (recent Friday khutbahs/sermons), geographic scope (US, Canada, Mexico), ordering (newest first), and optional filters. It is clear enough to distinguish from prayer-time tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like jumuah_times or masjids.

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?

Usage is implied through the optional topic and city filters, suggesting this is for browsing or searching sermons. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as jumuah_times or masjids, and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral caveat — Friday times are only included 'where known', warning the agent that data may be incomplete — but says nothing about result ordering, coverage limits, or what happens with an ambiguous location.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the payload contents. No filler, no redundancy, and every clause carries 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the main returned fields (addresses, Friday times), which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around ambiguous-location handling and result ordering, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's phrasing 'city, county or metro' restates the schema's own city description rather than adding new meaning, and it says nothing about the limit parameter.

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 names the resource (masjids/mosques), the geographic scope (city, county or metro), and what the records contain (addresses, Friday times where known), so an agent can tell it is a place-lookup tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as jumuah_times or prayer_times, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding mosques in an area, and the mention of 'Friday times where known' hints at overlap with jumuah_times. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of jumuah_times, khutbahs, or prayer_times, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and purity are covered. The description adds real value with the default-date behavior and the city-time-zone framing, but omits domain-relevant behavior such as which calculation method/convention is used, which materially affects the returned times.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical carries the defaults and time-zone semantics efficiently. Very minor awkwardness in packing destination, default, and time zone into one trailing clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With only two flat parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description does enough: it states what is returned (prayer times and sunrise), the default date, and the time-zone basis. The main remaining gap is the absence of any note on calculation convention or output formatting, which matters because there is no output schema.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds information the schema does not contain: that date defaults to today and that results are expressed in the city's time zone. That is meaningful clarification of optional-parameter behavior beyond the field descriptions.

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 names a specific resource (the five daily prayer times plus sunrise) and its scope (one city, one date, city-local time zone), which is more precise than the bare title 'Prayer times'. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like iqamah_times and jumuah_times by specifying the five daily prayers and sunrise, but it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 an implied usage context ('today by default') but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent when to prefer iqamah_times or jumuah_times instead, which is the main ambiguity given the sibling set.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds value by hedging the date range as 'expected', signalling the month's start is subject to lunar confirmation, but says nothing about calculation method, timezone handling, or what happens for an unmatched city.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (every day of the month) and the resource come first. The parenthetical approximates the date range efficiently without bloating the text.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description tells the agent what is returned (daily Fajr and Maghrib times for the month) and roughly over what window. Only minor operational details, such as timezone or calculation convention, are left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself illustrating both a name form and a path form. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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?

States a concrete resource and output: Fajr/Suhoor-end and Maghrib/iftar times for every day of Ramadan 2027 for a city. The Ramadan-2027 scoping is specific enough to separate it from generic prayer-time siblings conceptually, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Intended use (Ramadan daily suhoor/iftar scheduling) is implied by the resource itself but never stated, and there is no guidance on when to choose this over prayer_times, iqamah_times, or find_city. The city-name requirement is only discoverable from the schema.

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