zmanim_get_daily_times

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that the tool returns a string in requested format (markdown or json) and lists the included times. This provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but is not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise at about 10 lines, including a bullet list of returned times. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists specifics. Some redundancy exists in the full description, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose. Slight improvement could be achieved by merging the return format mention more concisely.

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 (multiple input parameters, output format options, listing many times), the description covers the output comprehensively and mentions format. Annotations cover idempotence and read-only. The schema fully documents parameters. No output schema is visible but context says it exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 indicated as 0%, but the input schema actually contains detailed descriptions for each property (location, latitude, longitude, time_zone, date, response_format). The tool description only vaguely mentions 'params (LocationInput): Input parameters containing location and date information' without adding new semantics. Since schema already covers parameters, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a comprehensive set of daily zmanim, listing major times. Annotations title 'Get All Daily Zmanim' matches. The tool name 'zmanim_get_daily_times' and the list of included times distinguish it from sibling tools like zmanim_get_mincha_times, which focus on subsets. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Use this tool to get a complete daily schedule of prayer times for any location.' While it does not list when to avoid, the contrast with sibling tools (which are more specific) implies that this tool is for full schedules and others for partial. This provides clear context for selection, though explicit exclusion of alternatives would improve score.

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