get_prayer_times_month

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

No annotations are provided for this read operation, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It doesn't state whether invalid zone codes cause errors, whether the operation is read-only/safe, what happens with invalid month/year values, or the response format. The zone format hint (JAKIM) is useful but the description lacks broader behavioral clarity.

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?

Two brief sentences with no wasted words. The purpose statement and zone format hint are both relevant. It's appropriately compact for its scope.

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?

There is an output schema, which helps with return-value understanding. Given the modest complexity (3 simple parameters for a read operation), the description covers the core purpose and one key data-format detail. However, it omits error behavior for invalid inputs and does not discuss month/year bounds, making it a minimum-viable but not thorough description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It only mentions the zone format (JAKIM format with example SGR01), offering no guidance on year/month ranges, constraints, or relationships between parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what the bare field names imply.

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 the verb+resource ('Get prayer times') with scope ('for all days in a given month'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_prayer_times_today beyond the month scope, though the month phrasing and sibling names make the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The description implies this is for monthly retrieval (vs daily for get_prayer_times_today), but there is no discussion of when to choose one over another or any context about valid zones or required format beyond a single example (SGR01).

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