Both tools have critical definition gaps. 'greet' has a parameter with null description (violates pattern:tool-description). 'get-time' has no parameters but lacks any tool description entirely. Neither tool has documented output schemas. Tool descriptions are missing or absent, making LLM selection impossible. No error handling guidance. Naming is acceptable but descriptions are the foundation of tool quality, their absence is disqualifying.

• Add tool descriptions: 'greet' → 'Greet a person by name. Returns a friendly greeting message.' (50-100 chars). 'get-time' → 'Get the current time in the user's local timezone. Returns time as HH:MM:SS format.' Descriptions must explain WHAT the tool does and WHEN to use it.
• Add parameter description for 'name' in greet: 'The person's name (1-100 characters, letters and spaces only). Used to personalize the greeting.'
• Document output schemas explicitly. E.g., greet returns {type: 'text', text: string}. get-time returns {type: 'text', text: string (ISO 8601 or HH:MM:SS)}.
• Add input validation: constrain 'name' to 1-100 characters, reject empty strings, and return actionable error: 'Name cannot be empty. Provide a person's name (1-100 characters).'
• Add error handling guidance: if name is invalid, return 'Invalid name format. Expected 1-100 characters (letters and spaces only). Example: "John Smith".' This enables LLM self-correction.