zmanim_get_shema_times

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the two halachic opinions and their differences, which goes beyond annotations but does not disclose potential edge cases or failure modes.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a useful note about the difference between the two opinions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the two opinions and mentions output format flexibility. It could sometimes state the default format or order of outputs, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a focused list tool.

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?

The description only briefly mentions the params argument as 'Input parameters containing location and date information.' The input schema provides detailed descriptions for each subfield (location, latitude, etc.), so schema coverage is high. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool gets the latest times for reciting the morning Shema according to two major opinions (GR"A and MG"A), using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zmanim_get_daily_times and zmanim_get_tefila_times by focusing on Shema.

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 explains the two calculations and notes that MG"A is earlier and more stringent, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the Shema focus.

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