get_prayer_times

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey important behavior: the date defaults to today and location defaults to configured coordinates. Nevertheless, it omits details such as timezone handling, calculation method, or explicit read-only nature, though 'Return' implies a safe lookup.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 and annotations, the description should provide more context. It tells the user what is returned (5 prayer times plus Sunrise) and the defaults, but it fails to list the specific prayer times or mention timezone considerations, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations for a tool in a crowded domain.

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 adds meaning to the 'date' parameter by specifying ISO 8601 format and its default, and it implies that location is represented by latitude/longitude. However, it does not clarify whether latitude and longitude must be provided together or how they relate to the configured coordinates.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all 5 daily prayer times plus Sunrise for a given date and location.' This makes the tool's core function understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_daily_azan_schedule or get_next_prayer.

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 the tool (for a given date and location) and mentions default behavior for date and location. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist, leaving the agent to infer its niche among many prayer-related siblings.

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