Prayer Times for Turkish Cities

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and excels: it discloses the Diyanet calculation method, 24-hour local Istanbul time format, Hijri date return, required city, date defaulting to today, the caching limitation, and error behavior for distant dates. This is outstanding transparency.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes: purpose, return values, usage caveats, and examples. It is front-loaded and structured, though a slight reduction in redundancy would push it to 5.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately outlines the output contents (prayer times and Hijri date) and error conditions (far dates). While it doesn't specify exact JSON shape, the explanation is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, and the link to list_prayer_cities covers missing city details.

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 100%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds meaningful context: examples of valid city slugs, transliteration rules, the requirement to call list_prayer_cities, and the date caching boundary, enriching the schema's parameters.

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 retrieves Islamic prayer times for Turkish cities via the official Diyanet method, and enumerates the returned times (fajr, sunrise, dhuhr, asr, maghrib, isha) plus Hijri date, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gold prices or exchange rates.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples ('iftar time in Istanbul') and directs users to call list_prayer_cities if unsure of city options. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the domain is clear relative to siblings.

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