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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the default English translation (en.asad), the ability to search other editions (including Arabic), and a result limit of 30 verses. This supplements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return format. The second sentence concisely adds the default translation and the option to search other editions. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the result structure (verses with surah and ayah numbers) and the result limit. It covers the three parameters and their defaults. It is complete for a search tool, though it omits error scenarios or empty results.

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 covers all three parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the default for the 'edition' parameter and mentioning that passing 'quran-uthmani' searches Arabic. It also clarifies that results include surah and ayah numbers, which is not in the schema.

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 the verb 'Search', the resource 'the Quran', and the scope 'across ayahs (verses)'. It also specifies the return format with surah and ayah numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ayah and get_surah, which retrieve specific items.

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 implies usage for keyword searching across the Quran, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions default edition and result limits, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings.

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