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

Annotations already state read-only/non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context: no widget is rendered, it is internal/preparatory, Arabic is unsupported, and each query requires at least one selector. These details inform the agent's execution strategy beyond annotation hints.

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?

Though long, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured (a)/(b) lists for usage cases. Every sentence adds distinct guidance — exclusions, chaining rules, format constraints — with no filler.

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 internal nature, the rich schema, and the presence of annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It covers selection, parameter constraints, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools. No critical behavioral information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already cover ISO 639-1 codes, ayah format, exclusion of 'ar', and the languages/translations requirement. The description restates these details without adding new semantic meaning, so 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 clearly identifies this as an internal/preparatory text-only tool that renders no widget, distinguishing it from the user-facing ayah_translation sibling. It states exactly what the tool returns conceptually (translation data) and when it should be used.

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?

Usage guidelines are exceptionally explicit: it names ayah_translation as the default alternative, lists two specific use cases (explicit plain-text request or chaining), warns against duplicating work after ayah_translation, and gives concrete parameter rules. This removes ambiguity about tool selection.

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