world_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely non-obvious behavior by revealing that the response also contains UTC and Asia/Dhaka values alongside the requested zone, but it says nothing about how invalid or misspelled timezone names are handled or what the failure mode looks like.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the format examples. Every element earns its place; the example list is the most valuable part for callers and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only utility with an output schema already defining return values, this is nearly sufficient: purpose, format and examples are all present. The only meaningful gap is error behavior for invalid timezone identifiers, which the annotation-free description could have covered.

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 schema says only 'timezone_name: string'. The description compensates well for a single parameter by naming the format ('IANA timezone') and giving four concrete valid examples spanning Asia/Dhaka, Asia/Kolkata, Europe/London and America/New_York, which is enough for an agent to construct a correct value.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Current time in a given IANA timezone', and even enumerates the extra values returned (UTC and Asia/Dhaka). No sibling tool covers time lookup, so there is nothing to confuse it with, and an agent can select it from the name plus this sentence alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it is the tool for 'what time is it in X'. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of when not to use it, and no prerequisite such as requiring a valid IANA identifier rather than a city name or offset.

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