get_voluntary_fasting_dates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states what is returned (a list of voluntary fasting days) and the categories included, but does not mention how Gregorian-to-Hijri conversion is handled, potential conflicts with forbidden fasting days (e.g., Eid), or whether the dates follow local sightings. The description is transparent about content but not about edge cases or output format.

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, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the main action and lists the specific fasting categories, with no redundant words or fluff. Every word adds value, and the semicolon-style listing improves readability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out critical context: the expected return format (e.g., array of date strings), whether dates are in Gregorian or Islamic calendar, and how the year/month inputs are used together. For a calendar tool relying on Hijri conversion, this is essential information. The description also doesn't address edge cases like months with no such days or overlapping fasts. It is not complete enough for an agent to know what to do with the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'Gregorian month' and omits explicit clarification of the year parameter. The parameter names in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description's phrasing 'in a given Gregorian month' doesn't explain that the year is required to compute the correct Hijri dates. No range or format guidance is provided, leaving ambiguity about the role of gregorian_year.

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 function: returning all recommended voluntary fasting days in a given Gregorian month. It lists specific categories (Mondays/Thursdays, Ayyam al-Beed, Day of Arafah, 6 days of Shawwal), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ramadan_dates or get_eid_dates. The verb 'Return' and resource 'recommended voluntary fasting days' are precise.

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 implies usage for voluntary fasting days but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_islamic_events or get_ramadan_dates. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools for other Islamic dates. The distinction is clear from the name and content, but the description lacks explicit exclusions or context.

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