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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by recommending a max range of ~7 days and listing the exact set of returned time categories, including variant opinions.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The long list of zmanim is necessary to convey the tool's output richness, and the parenthetical range recommendation is tucked in without disrupting the main clause.

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 present, the description does well to enumerate the specific return values. Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent can reasonably understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it. It stops short of fully complete only because it lacks explicit routing guidance against sibling time-related tools.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the relationship between the primary parameters (location, date, date range) but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states that the tool returns halachic times of day for a location and date/date range, and it enumerates the specific zmanim included. This makes the primary resource and scope unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_shabbat_times or get_jewish_calendar.

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 conveys the core usage context: a location and date, with an optional date range and a recommended maximum of ~7 days. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over related tools such as get_shabbat_times, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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