query_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by listing the broad capabilities (9 cultural calendars, astronomical events, religious fasting status, etc.) and providing example queries that demonstrate the tool's scope. However, it doesn't mention limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with ambiguous queries, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific capabilities and example queries. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some capability listings. The structure effectively communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (handling 9 cultural calendars, astronomical events, religious fasting, etc.) with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by comprehensively listing capabilities and providing example queries. However, it doesn't explain what the return values look like or address potential limitations, leaving some gaps for a tool with such broad functionality.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing multiple concrete examples of valid 'query' parameter values ('What time is it in Tokyo?', 'Is it a good time to call Berlin?', etc.), but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'user_timezone' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Query temporal information using natural language' followed by a comprehensive list of capabilities including current time, timezone info, 9 cultural calendars, astronomical events, religious fasting status, work restrictions, and activity appropriateness. It distinguishes from siblings by covering a broader temporal scope than 'check_activity_appropriateness' and 'query_prayer_times'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool through multiple example queries ('What time is it in Tokyo?', 'Is it a good time to call Berlin?', etc.), showing it handles diverse temporal questions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or when to prefer sibling tools like 'check_activity_appropriateness' or 'query_prayer_times' for more specific needs.

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