Prayer times (Diyanet method)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-dependency profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context by naming the Diyanet method and Aladhan API, but does not mention rate limits, error behavior if the API is unavailable, or the shape of the returned times.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, enumerates the relevant outputs, and adds method/API context without unnecessary preamble or repetition.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete and even helps by enumerating the returned prayer-time fields. However, with no output schema, it could more explicitly describe the response structure or date-default behavior, leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so province, district, and date are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the province/district scope but adds no format, default, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (daily prayer times), names the exact fields returned (imsak, güneş, öğle, ikindi, akşam, yatsı), and identifies the calculation method and upstream API. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_public_holidays or check_date.

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 phrase 'for a province or district' implies the intended input context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus related siblings, nor any note about using list_provinces/find_district to resolve location names first. Usage is only implied rather than stated.

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