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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns daily portions in multiple units, a day-by-day schedule with exact surah:ayah boundaries and wesalna.com links, and explains the page-weighting logic. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and modes, the second summarizes the output content, and the third explains the weighting behavior. This is concise and front-loaded, though the third sentence could be seen as extra but it is relevant.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining the return value: daily portion in pages, juz, verses, estimated minutes, and a full day-by-day schedule with exact surah:ayah and links. The agent can predict the result without needing an output schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive text for every parameter, including the semantics of the two date-based modes. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the two modes. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Build' and the resource 'Quran completion (khatma) plan', and elaborates on what it does: splitting the mushaf across days or a date range. It also distinguishes itself from any sibling tools by its unique function, since none of the siblings relate to planning a khatma.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a khatma plan is needed, either over a number of days or between two dates. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling list contains no overlapping planning-related tools, the intended usage is sufficiently clear.

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