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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds that only 'published' content is returned, and specifies the fields included (titles, summaries, URLs), which goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (listing editorial content) before detailing the content types and return fields. There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it appropriately concise.

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 list tool with two parameters (one required enum, one optional) and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions articles and stories but these are already defined in the enum. The category parameter's behavior is already described in the schema, and the description adds no extra syntax or edge-case details.

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 clearly states the tool lists Wesalna's published editorial content, specifically knowledge-base articles or illustrated stories of the prophets, with titles, summaries, and canonical URLs. It identifies the exact resource and output, and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_azkar and list_surahs which cover other content types.

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 the tool is for listing editorial content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_content for fetching a single item or other list tools. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would guide an agent to choose this tool specifically.

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