chuk-mcp-time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns all valid IANA timezone identifiers, supports optional filtering by country code and search substring, and is case-insensitive for search. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which could be relevant for a list operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by key benefits, then structured parameter and return details. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy, and the use of sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details on the return structure (e.g., what metadata is included in ListTimezonesResponse) and any behavioral constraints like error handling or performance, leaving minor gaps.

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 fully compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'country_code' as an optional ISO 3166 country code filter with examples ('US', 'GB', 'FR'), and 'search' as an optional case-insensitive substring filter. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameters fully understandable.

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 the specific action ('List available IANA timezones') and resource ('IANA timezone identifiers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_timezone_info' or 'convert_time' by focusing on listing/discovery rather than conversion or information retrieval. It explicitly mentions preventing hallucination of invalid timezones, which adds unique value.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Helps discover correct timezone names and prevents hallucination of invalid timezones'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. The implied usage is strong, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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