Muslim Prayer Reminder MCP

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

Annotations already convey non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added 'persistent storage' context is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose overwrite semantics or whether omitted fields are preserved, but it does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource first and then lists the configurable dimensions in a compact list. Every word adds information, and it is appropriately sized for 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?

The tool is complex (13 parameters, nested objects, enums), but the input schema covers every parameter and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to repeat return or parameter details. It adequately frames purpose and persistence, though it could mention that only userId is required and omitted fields likely remain unchanged.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each of the 13 parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping of parameters into categories and names madhab, reminder mode, and notification language, but provides no per-parameter meaning 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 names a clear action ('configures'), a specific resource (user prayer preferences), and enumerates the domains it affects: calculation parameters, location behavior, madhab, reminder mode, and notification language. This makes it easy to distinguish from the get_* siblings as the write/preference-update tool.

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 verb 'configures' plus 'persistent storage' clearly signals this is the mutation tool, while sibling names like get_prayer_preferences and get_prayer_status cover read-only retrieval. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, but the read/write split provides clear context.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a crucial behavioral obligation beyond those annotations: the agent must always disclose the calculation authority and the rationale for its selection, referencing authorityNotice in the response. This is actionable and materially changes how the agent should behave.

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 sentences with no filler. The return values are front-loaded, and the mandatory disclosure follows in a clearly marked instruction. The all-caps note is justified because it is a critical agent obligation that must not be overlooked.

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?

With a full output schema, annotations covering safety, and a description that names the exact response fields (prayer name, time, authority method, countdown, authorityNotice), the agent has everything necessary to call and handle the tool correctly. The only minor gap, choosing among siblings, is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness gap.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat parameter-level details. It does mention 'calculation authority method', which maps to the calculationMethod parameter, but it adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource – returning the immediate next prayer with its name, scheduled time, authority method, and countdown. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_today_prayer_times by the 'immediate next' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 implies usage when an agent needs the next upcoming prayer and its countdown, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_today_prayer_times or get_prayer_status, nor does it provide any exclusions. The mandatory disclosure note is an instruction for after invocation, not a selection guideline.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'currently active' qualifier, which clarifies that the result reflects current settings rather than historical ones, but otherwise adds little behavioral detail 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The phrase 'Read-only operation' is slightly redundant given the annotations, but the overall structure is clear and efficient.

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 single-parameter read-only retrieval with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, that it is read-only, and the userId parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 only parameter, userId, is already described as a 'Unique user identifier' in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because the schema fully covers it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('currently active calculation settings and preferences for a user'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_today_prayer_times or get_prayer_status. The title reinforces the purpose as retrieving stored prayer preferences.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool to use when retrieving a user's current calculation settings and preferences, and the 'Read-only operation' statement clarifies it is for reading rather than configuring. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by mandating that the LLM disclose the calculation authority method and reasoning to the user, and by referencing authorityNotice in the response. This is a non-obvious requirement that the agent needs to know.

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 sentences with no filler: the first clearly states the tool's behavior and scope, and the second front-loads the critical mandatory disclosure. 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?

For a read-only, idempotent status tool with zero required parameters, fully documented schema fields, and an output schema available, the description is complete. It covers the one non-obvious agent obligation and does not need to repeat return-value details already provided by structured fields.

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%, with every parameter, including enums, already described. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing calculation authority and user location, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Checks'), names the exact resource (the five obligatory Muslim prayers), and scopes the action to 'currently due for the user location' and 'active reminder details'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_next_prayer and get_today_prayer_times, even without explicitly naming them.

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?

It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_next_prayer or get_today_prayer_times. The 'currently due' wording implies the selection context, and the MANDATORY disclosure instruction is an operational guideline, but explicit routing to sibling tools is missing.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by stating output is provided in both UTC and formatted local time, and by imposing a mandatory user disclosure about the calculation method via authorityNotice. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second delivers a critical mandatory usage rule. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations defining behavior, the description fully covers what is retrieved, the display format, and a mandatory disclosure requirement. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with all seven parameters documented, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description only echoes 'calculation authority method' without adding new parameter-specific detail, earning the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') with a specific resource ('today prayer timetable') and enumerates exactly which prayers are included (Fajr through Isha). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_next_prayer or get_prayer_status.

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 makes its scope explicit as the full daily timetable, so an agent can infer when to call it versus a single-prayer or status tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, missing the full 'when-to-use' treatment.

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