get_azan_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as returning text, which is a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid inputs (e.g., unrecognized prayer name) or confirm idempotency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's functionality.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should specify what the return value looks like (e.g., a string, multiple lines, format). It only says 'full Azan text,' which is ambiguous. Additionally, it does not mention the default parameter value for 'language' (set to 'both' in schema). This leaves the agent without critical information for proper invocation.

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 compensate. It lists allowed values for 'prayer' (fajr, dhuhr, asr, maghrib, isha) and 'language' (arabic, transliteration, both). While this provides necessary guidance, it does not explain the meaning of each option (e.g., what 'transliteration' entails) or the default value for 'language' (which is 'both' per schema).

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 'Return the full Azan text' and enumerates the specific parameters (prayer and language) with their allowed values, clearly identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_daily_azan_schedule or get_prayer_times, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no clear guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., get_iqama_time).

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