prayer_times_for

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 discloses the response includes many specific times (Fajr, Sunrise, etc.) and dates, and clarifies the mutual exclusivity of parameters. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 two well-structured paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description appropriately does not explain return values in detail. It enumerates the returned times and dates, describes defaults, and covers the parameter usage rules. For a tool with 7 parameters (none required), the description is sufficiently complete to allow correct invocation.

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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of city vs. coordinates, detailing the calculation method IDs (e.g., 8=Gulf Region), and stating defaults (e.g., city defaults to Dubai). This goes beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves five daily prayer times for a UAE city or arbitrary coordinates, with a specific verb (Get) and resource (prayer times). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prayer_times_calendar' (likely a calendar view) and 'qibla_direction' (direction only), so an agent can differentiate.

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 pass either a city name or coordinates, not both, and lists defaults for city, method, school, country, and date. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternate siblings like 'prayer_times_calendar' for a monthly view, so some guidance is missing.

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