Awwab Qibla & Quiz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the concrete consequence that each question can be graded only once. It also summarizes the response, including returning the final score after the last question, though it does not describe the error behavior for a duplicate grading attempt.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action, workflow context, return summary, and one-time constraint front-loaded. There is no filler and every sentence contributes useful invocation context.

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 an output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the needed workflow context: it follows start_quiz, grades one answer, can be used only once per question, and returns final score after the last question. No critical invocation context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents quiz_id, question_id, answer format by question type, and the language enum. The description only implies the start_quiz workflow and adds no parameter-level syntax beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb, 'Grades', and a specific object, 'one answer from a start_quiz round'. It clearly distinguishes itself from start_quiz by being the downstream grading step rather than the quiz-creation step, and the return details further pin the purpose.

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?

Establishes the prerequisite context that it operates on a start_quiz round and enforces the key constraint that each question can be graded once. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a direct alternative beyond start_quiz, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the privacy guarantee that the place 'isn't logged or stored' and the presence of an attribution line plus a live_compass_url in the result. It stops short of covering failure behavior, such as ambiguous or unknown places.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the definition before the usage triggers, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (outputs, triggers, privacy). It runs slightly long for a two-parameter lookup, with the output enumeration being partly redundant with the output schema, but nothing is filler.

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 simple two-param, annotated, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, output shape and privacy. The only real gap is edge-case behavior, e.g. what happens when the place is ambiguous or not matched at the 15,000-population threshold.

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%, with both the place format (city, qualified city, coordinates) and the language enum fully documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond noting the place is only used to answer the request, which is a privacy note rather than semantic clarification.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the Qibla direction') and immediately defines the concept for agents that lack domain knowledge, including the reference point (Kaaba in Makkah). It is unmistakable against the siblings check_answer and start_quiz, which belong to a different domain entirely.

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?

Enumerates concrete invocation triggers: 'any question about the Qibla, the prayer direction, or the direction of Makkah (Mecca) or the Kaaba, including a request to show a Qibla compass.' There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but no plausible alternative tool exists in this sibling set, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: answers are withheld from the response and a quiz_id is issued for later grading, which explains why readOnlyHint is false despite sounding like a read. Missing only things like rate limits or whether rounds are deterministic.

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 verb and scope, then usage trigger, then return contract. The trailing sentence listing question types is slightly bolted on but does carry information (multi-format output) that affects how an agent presents results.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the key contract (questions and options, no correct answers, plus quiz_id). With only two optional, fully described parameters and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (topic, language) are already fully documented with examples and the mixed-round default. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating that language is chosen and topic is optional; the question-type list it does add is not a parameter at all, so it doesn't help parameter selection.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Starts one round of the Awwab Knowledge quiz on Islam") plus concrete scope: five questions, chosen language, optional topic. It also names the natural sibling handoff (check_answer) and enumerates question types, so an agent can distinguish it from check_answer and find_qibla without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: "Use this for a request for an Islamic quiz, test or trivia", which tells the agent exactly which user intent selects this tool. The follow-up path to check_answer is implied via quiz_id, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. resuming an existing round).

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