get_current_time

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the retry behavior for country-name queries, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, or the structure of the payload, but given the tool's simplicity, the description provides sufficient 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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides a nuanced behavior, and the third gives an explicit routing rule. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core use cases and provides a crucial exclusion for relative dates, but does not fully compensate for lack of output structure or edge-case handling. However, the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal param-specific meaning (e.g., mentions city, query, timezone in the purpose). It does not elaborate on mutual exclusivity or priorities among the fields, but the schema's coverage is high, so a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns the current time payload for a city, query, or timezone, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool answer_time_question by specifying that relative-date inputs should not be handled here. The verb 'Return' plus the resource 'production current time payload' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to route relative-date inputs to answer_time_question, providing a clear when-not-to-use directive and naming the alternative. It also mentions that exact country-name queries may be retried through a canonical city, giving concrete usage context.

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