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.