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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the payload includes an extra signal about which languages have word-by-word meanings, but says nothing about ordering, size, or shape of the result.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is densely packed, though the clause 'Also which languages have word-by-word meanings' is grammatically fragmentary and slightly awkward 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, and it only lists field names without saying whether the word-by-word availability is a separate field, a per-translation flag, or a separate list. Adequate for a simple list tool, but leaves real ambiguity about the response.

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% and the language parameter already documents accepted name-or-code forms with examples. The description only restates that the filter is optional, adding no format or matching semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource (listing available translations) and names the returned fields (id, language, translator) plus the word-by-word availability signal, which distinguishes it from list_reciters and list_surahs. The phrasing 'on offer' is a bit loose but an agent can still tell what the tool returns.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says to call this before word_by_word or get_tafsir to discover which translations/languages exist, nor when to pass the language filter versus listing everything. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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