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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds useful domain context — scholarly agreement/dissent plus reasoning and halal alternatives — but the trailing truncation ('halal alt...') cuts off a stated behavioral trait.

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?

It is short, but it is a single run-on enumeration that ends mid-word ('halal alt...'), so the description is truncated rather than concise — the closing promise of the tool is literally missing.

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 no-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the returned rulebook contains or how it is structured. It gestures at that ('showing where the four Sunni schools... agree and where they differ') but the truncation leaves the return content underspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not pretend any inputs exist.

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 conveys the coverage domain (food, cosmetics, medicines, stocks, funds, crypto, money, everyday life) and the comparative angle across the four Sunni schools, but it never states the actual operation — that this tool returns a list of rules — and reads much like an answering tool, blurring it with halalornot_ask_is_it_halal and halalornot_list_topics.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over ask_is_it_halal (for verdicts), list_topics (for topic discovery) or explain_schools (for madhhab comparison), even though all four sit in the same family.

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