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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds a behavioral obligation: the LLM must always disclose the calculation authority method and the reason it was selected. It also references authorityNotice in the response, providing context about the output contract beyond the raw schema.

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 one tight sentence enumerating the returned fields, followed by a short, clearly marked mandatory instruction. No filler or repetition; the important disclosure requirement is placed at the end but prominent.

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 100% schema coverage, all six optional parameters are documented, annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and an output schema exists to define the return shape. The description fills the remaining gaps: what the function returns and the mandatory disclosure requirement. It could be more complete by noting that no parameters are required, but the schema already makes this evident.

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 parameter descriptions already carry the semantic load. The tool description adds no additional meaning about madhab, calculationMethod, or the geographic overrides; it only mentions the authority calculation method as an output field. 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 ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('immediate next prayer') along with the exact fields returned: name, scheduled time, authority calculation method, and countdown in minutes. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_today_prayer_times or get_prayer_status, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool rather than get_today_prayer_times, get_prayer_status, or get_prayer_preferences. The description only contains a mandatory disclosure instruction for the response, not any context about tool selection or when the tool is appropriate.

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