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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say how results are ranked or ordered, whether the search spans corpora jointly or returns per-corpus sections, what a result item contains, or anything about locale fallback behavior — all material for a search endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight rather than bloated; the shortfall is missing detail, not verbosity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back and how to interpret results, and it says nothing about return shape or ordering. For a three-parameter search tool this leaves a real gap in call-time expectations.

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 query, limit (1–20, default 10) and locale all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never explains how the query string is interpreted (phrase, stemming, Arabic normalization) or how locale affects matching versus display.

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 and resource: 'Full-text search across all Islamic content' with the three corpora (Quran, hadith, tafsir) enumerated. That is enough to separate it from the sibling ID-lookup tools (get-verse, get-chapter), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get-verse for direct retrieval or list-books for browsing. The agent must infer that this is the keyword-search path rather than the lookup path.

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