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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it shows matches in an interactive widget, requires Arabic-script queries, and states this should be the FINAL tool call rather than chaining search_ayahs_text. No contradiction with 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 dense and front-loaded, opening with 'DEFAULT tool' before covering use cases, widget behavior, query constraints, and the alternative. Every sentence contributes essential decision-making information, making the length justified.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, widget display, query constraints, and the precise conditions for using the sibling tool. The output schema exists, so not explaining return values is fine.

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 already provides thorough descriptions of both parameters (query semantics, numeric matching, max_results bounds). The description's mention of Arabic script and numeric matching largely duplicates the schema, so it adds little beyond the schema's coverage.

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 this is the DEFAULT tool for user-facing Quran search, with explicit example queries and the scope ('find ayahs that contain X'). It distinguishes from sibling search_ayahs_text by specifying this is the widget-based final call.

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 explicit guidance: use for ANY user-facing search, and ONLY skip when the user asks for plain text or results feed another tool. It names the alternative tool (search_ayahs_text) and gives a 'when in doubt' rule, making usage conditions unambiguous.

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