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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that values are 'IFB's own published values, not a computation', which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and resource, second gives usage tip and source authority. Every word adds value, no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does and how to use it. Could specify return format (e.g., minutes), but the core context is 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 has 1 optional parameter with 100% description coverage. Description adds meaning by explaining omission lists all districts, and provides example inputs. Baseline 3 with enhanced clarity.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'time offset from Dhaka for a Bangladeshi district', and specific use 'for sehri end and iftar'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_prayer_times, get_hijri_calendar) which cover different religious time data.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Omit the district to list all 64', providing a clear usage pattern. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion is minimal.

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