prayer_times

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds that results are 'computed locally', which independently confirms no network or external state is touched. It stops short of describing output shape or edge-case behavior (e.g., polar latitudes), but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then defaults, then enum values. There is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing invocation-critical detail.

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 six-parameter read-only computation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, both defaults, and all enumerated values. Return format is covered by the output schema and safety by annotations, so nothing an agent needs 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it gives the day format (YYYY-MM-DD, today by default), the timezone format (IANA name, machine zone by default), the full method enum (MWL, ISNA, Egypt, Makkah, Karachi, UOIF, Tehran), and the asr values (standard/hanafi). These are not present in the schema, so this is genuine added meaning.

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 opens with a precise statement of what is produced (prayer times) for what inputs (a place and a day), and notes the computation happens locally. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (get_verses, list_surahs, search_hadith, etc.), so an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied through defaults (day defaults to today, timezone defaults to the machine zone), which tells the agent it can call with only lat/long. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives or preconditions — though the sibling set contains no overlapping tool, so the omission is low-cost.

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