time_at_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is computed offline from a bundled boundary dataset, and it discloses the specific return fields including DST transition timing. This gives the agent useful expectations about data source and behavior without contradicting 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a concise list of return values, a note on the offline computation, and relevant use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, computational basis, and example use cases. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 already describes the single parameter as 'Position, as coordinates or a place name,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter-level detail such as accepted coordinate formats or how place names are resolved, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning, so a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the time zone and current local time at a location.' It then enumerates the exact outputs (IANA zone name, local time, UTC offset, DST status, next DST transition), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like place_geocode, env_weather, or sun_moon.

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 concrete use cases: scheduling across sites, interpreting GPS timestamps, and delivery/support-window overlaps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize appropriate invocation scenarios.

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