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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields and noting the optional filter, but it does not disclose details like ordering, partial-match semantics, or whether the full 114-item list is always returned unfiltered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior and output fields are front-loaded, and the optional filtering behavior is stated plainly in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description compensates well for the absence of an output schema by explicitly naming the returned attributes. It also covers the single input parameter adequately. Minor gaps remain, such as matching behavior for search and sort order, but these are low-stakes for a simple catalog listing.

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%, and the input schema fully documents the 'search' parameter as filtering by Arabic/English name or slug. The description repeats the optional filtering idea but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('List'), a concrete resource ('the 114 surahs of the Quran'), and enumerates the fields returned. Its plural scope clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_surah, which implies retrieving a single surah.

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 makes the core use case clear: list all surahs or optionally filter by name/slug. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_surah or search_quran, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to those alternatives.

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