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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety (only implied by 'List'), ordering of returned chapters, pagination, or what fields each chapter entry has. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and no wasted verbiage. It could be tightened slightly, but nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level (chapters of a book) but not the shape or ordering of that list. Adequate to invoke correctly, but not fully complete.

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%, with 'book' documented as a slug with examples and 'locale' documented with its default and examples, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's examples ('surahs for Quran, books for hadith collections') add only marginal conceptual clarity beyond that.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'chapters' scoped to 'a given book', with parenthetical examples that disambiguate what a chapter is across the corpus (surahs, hadith books). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get-chapter or list-books, but the enumeration scope is unmistakable.

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 is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you have a book slug and want its chapter enumeration, and that get-chapter is for a single chapter. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is provided.

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