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

Annotations already establish read-only, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: diacritics are optional, results are capped at 50, and each result includes its reference and link.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys search scope, language mode, result cap, and return shape efficiently.

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 search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough context: what is searched, how translation changes the target, how many results are returned, and what each result contains.

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 partial, and the description compensates by explaining that query words are matched in Arabic with optional diacritics, that translation makes the search target the translation instead, and that results are limited. It does not cover the query length bounds or the default limit of 10, but it adds meaningful semantics.

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 and resource: finding ayahs containing given words, in Arabic or a selected translation. It clearly distinguishes the tool from retrieval siblings like get_ayah and word_by_word by describing search behavior.

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 clearly explains the main usage choice: search Arabic by default, or use the translation parameter to search within a translation instead. It does not explicitly rule out sibling tools such as get_ayah, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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