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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the operation is a pure read, what a returned hadith looks like, what happens when the part number is out of range, or whether missing locales fall back to a default. For a 4-parameter retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a useful scoping parenthetical and no filler. It is on the terse side rather than bloated, with minor compression cost in the ambiguous "hadith or part" phrasing.

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?

The schema is fully documented and there is no output schema to explain, so the description need not cover parameters or return values. However, with no annotations and five sibling tools, a sentence on read-only behavior and on when this beats get-chapter or search-content is still 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains book slug, chapter, part (1-indexed), and locale with an example. The description only echoes that the number is scoped to a chapter, adding essentially no syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("a specific hadith or part by number from a chapter"), and the parenthetical narrows scope to non-Quran books, which implicitly separates it from get-verse. The only weakness is the hedging "hadith or part", which leaves it slightly unclear whether those are the same unit or two different ones.

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 clarification "for non-Quran books like Bukhari, Muslim" gives a real selection cue against a Quran-oriented sibling, but it never names the alternative, nor does it say when to prefer search-content or get-chapter instead. The when-to-use signal is present but implicit.

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