AskSakina Islamic Knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (reference, Tanzil Arabic, Pickthall English) and provides a concrete instruction: 'Quote the Arabic exactly.' This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover rate limits, errors, or ordering.

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 sentences with no filler. The core search behavior is front-loaded, the return format is stated, and the exact-quoting instruction is a valuable addition that earns its place.

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?

The description covers the key operational facts: what it searches, what it returns, and the exact-quoting requirement. The schema fills in parameter details. It could be more complete with explicit guidance on choosing locale or distinguishing from get_quran_verse, but for a simple search tool it is largely adequate.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond confirming the query is a topic keyword, but it does not explain limit or locale semantics, leaving that to the schema.

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 a specific action ('Searches AskSakina's thematic index') and a specific resource ('Quran verses by topic keyword'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them, though the 'thematic index by topic keyword' phrasing implies a distinction from get_quran_verse.

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 phrase 'by topic keyword' gives some implied guidance about when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_quran_verse, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning 'source and grading where recorded' (indicating variability) and instructing to show any crisis_resource block verbatim, which is an important output behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a get-type tool.

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 zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and examples; the second provides a critical output instruction. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 get with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, and a vital output instruction (crisis_resource verbatim). It does not detail error handling or result pagination, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool. The absence of annotations is partially mitigated by the description's clarity, so it is reasonably complete.

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% – both parameters (context and locale) are already described in the input schema. The description repeats context examples but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The locale behavior (v1 returns English for all locales) is documented in the schema, not the description. Thus, baseline 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 states a specific action (Returns du'as) and resource (curated collection) with concrete examples of life contexts (anxiety, travel, gratitude). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like find_verses or get_quran_verse by focusing on du'as rather than verses or divine names.

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 implies usage by specifying a life context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide conditions when not to use it. The examples suggest contexts, but no exclusions or comparisons are given, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It does convey the output structure (Arabic, transliteration, meaning, reflection, Quranic references) and adds a behavioral instruction ('Quote the Arabic exactly'), which is useful for downstream use. However, it does not mention failure modes, error handling, or what happens if both number and name are provided. For a simple read-only lookup, this is acceptable but not comprehensive enough to score higher.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output fields, then adds a critical usage instruction. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant information. The structure is ideal for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool of this simplicity, the description covers the essential information: what it returns, how to select a Name, and a specific output instruction. It does not need to explain return values at a deeper level because the listed fields are self-explanatory. The only minor gap is handling of conflicting inputs (when both number and name are given), but this is an edge case not critical for typical use.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (name, locale, number) with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning: it clarifies the relationship between number and name (by number or by name) and hints at the output format. This is a marginal addition over the schema, 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('one of the 99 Names of Allah') with concrete fields (Arabic, transliteration, meaning, reflection, Quranic references). It clearly differentiates from siblings like find_verses and get_quran_verse, which target different content types. It also clarifies the two selection modes (number or name), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (find_verses, get_dua, get_quran_verse). While the purpose implies it is for Names of Allah, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or context about when it is appropriate. The only implicit signal is the resource type, which is not sufficient for robust tool selection.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core output behavior (two texts plus citation) and adds an important usage constraint ('Quote the Arabic exactly'), but it omits edge cases like invalid references and any potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple read-only lookup but not fully transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and output, followed by a short, essential instruction about exact quoting. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 verse-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, input identifiers, outputs, and a critical usage rule. It does not explain the citation format or error behavior, but those are minor given the schema already enforces valid ranges and the tool's simplicity.

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 all parameters and their constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that 'surah' and 'ayah' are the lookup coordinates; it does not clarify the locale behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one Quran verse by surah and ayah number'), and clarifies the exact outputs: Tanzil Uthmani Arabic, Pickthall English, and citation. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_verses (search-oriented) and get_dua/get_name_of_allah (different resources).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'by surah and ayah number,' which is insufficient for an agent deciding between this and find_verses.

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