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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context—the specific edition, Arabic language, and a 50-ayah limit—but does not describe response format or any edge-case behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler. The edition, language, and range limit are front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 read-only lookup with annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: edition, language, and ayah-range scope. The main remaining gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 only 33%, with just surah described. The description adds that the range can span one ayah or a run of up to 50, which partially explains the ayah/to relationship, but does not explicitly define 'to' as the inclusive end of the range or clarify ayah numbering.

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 names the specific resource (Tafsir al-Muyassar from King Fahd Complex), the language (Arabic), and the scope (one ayah or a run up to 50). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ayah or word_by_word, though the verb is only implied by the tool name.

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?

It states the maximum range but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_ayah, word_by_word, or search. The intended use (fetching commentary for an ayah range) is only inferred from the content.

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