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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it states that matching supports partial, whole-word, and Arabic-root modes, and that results include surah/ayah numbers plus a distribution of matches across surahs. This gives the agent a concrete picture of output and matching semantics without contradicting annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact enumeration of the key features and return format. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema descriptions. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter search tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema), the description covers the essential deciding factors: searchable languages, matching modes, filter dimensions (juz, surah range), and return contents. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the default limit, but those are already described in the schema. The addition of 'how the matches spread across surahs' is a nice completeness touch, leaving only minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters and their meanings. The description essentially paraphrases those meanings (e.g., 'all-words or any-word mode' maps to wordMode, 'Arabic-root matching' maps to matchType=root) without adding new detail. It groups them helpfully but does not go beyond the schema to explain syntax, defaults, or edge cases, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Quran verses by Arabic wording or by the English translation.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_surah and list_surahs by framing it as a cross-cutting search over verses rather than a retrieval or listing operation. The supported match modes and filters further define its unique role.

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 conveys clear context for when to use the tool: when a user wants to search across Quran verses by wording/translation with flexible matching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance, but the contrast with siblings (get_surah, list_surahs, plan_khatma) is implicit and clear from the search-focused wording.

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