get_prayer_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose data sources, update frequency, return format, or any side effects. For a daily prayer times tool, this is minimal 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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about response structure, error handling, or data source. It is minimally adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by specifying 'Moroccan cities' as scope, but the city and date parameters are already documented in the schema. No additional semantic details are provided.

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 specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'prayer times', and the scope 'Moroccan cities'. It lists the specific prayer times (Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, Isha), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_next_prayer and get_weekly_prayer_times.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names imply differentiation (e.g., get_next_prayer for next prayer, get_weekly_prayer_times for weekly), but the description itself lacks any usage or exclusion context.

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