get_ramadan_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clarifies that both input and output use the Gregorian calendar, which is important context. However, it does not disclose whether the dates are based on astronomical calculations, the exact return format, or potential approximation due to moon sighting—though these are minor for such a read-only tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. It contains no filler, directly states the action and outcome, and every word contributes meaning. Example of efficient specification.

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?

As a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core functionality but omits the return structure (e.g., whether dates are returned as a string, object, or array). It also lacks a note about calculation methodology, which could be relevant for a religious dates tool. Adequate for basic invocation but not fully transparent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a given year', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name `gregorian_year` already present in the schema. It fails to mention constraints like valid year ranges or expected date format, leaving the parameter semantics largely dependent on the schema name.

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's verb ('Return'), resource ('the Gregorian start and end dates of Ramadan'), and scope ('for a given year'). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like `get_islamic_events` or `get_eid_dates` by focusing specifically on Ramadan's start and end dates in Gregorian terms.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_islamic_events` or `convert_hijri_to_gregorian`. The description only states what it does, leaving it to the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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