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.