timezone_info

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the two-mode behavior and the omit-to-list convention, but does not explain what 'details' include or any other behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that covers both lookup and list modes without unnecessary words. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description is largely sufficient: it explains both invocation modes and the optional parameter. The only minor gap is that 'details' is vague and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape.

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%, and the single parameter is fully documented with examples and the omit-to-list-all behavior. The description repeats that same information rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: look up timezone offset/details by abbreviation, or list all timezones. It clearly distinguishes the tool's two operating modes, but does not differentiate it from close siblings such as worldtime_by_timezone, worldtime_list_timezones, or time_api_timezones.

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 'Omit to list all' gives a useful condition for the no-argument mode, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling timezone tools. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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