Two tools with minimal but present schemas and descriptions. Both tools have clear, action-oriented names (greet, serverTime) and basic parameter documentation. However, descriptions are extremely brief (under 100 chars), parameter descriptions lack detail about format/constraints, and output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance, no parameter validation rules, and no indication of how results chain to other tools. Naming follows verb_noun convention but descriptions fall short of LLM-optimization standards (target 50-200 chars). Tool definitions appear directly in source code, so no inference penalty applies.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters. Example for greet: 'Generate a personalized greeting message for a given name. Use this to create friendly, context-aware responses in chat interactions. Returns a formatted greeting string.'
• Document output schemas explicitly. For greet, specify: 'Returns {greeting: string}'. For serverTime, specify: 'Returns {timestamp: string (ISO-8601 format), timezone: string}'.
• Add format constraints to parameter descriptions. For greet's name param: 'Name of the person to greet (1-100 characters, letters, spaces, and hyphens only).'
• Include error handling guidance. E.g., 'If name is empty or contains invalid characters, returns error: "Invalid name format. Expected 1-100 characters."'
• Add idempotent/read-only hints to tool definitions. Both tools are read-only and idempotent, annotate them with readOnlyHint=true to signal safety to agents.