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

The annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the acceptable input patterns ('2:255', '1:1-7', '2:'), which clarifies the tool's behavior, but does not discuss return format or edge cases.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides concrete syntax examples. It contains no filler and each part adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers all supported input formats and clearly states the resource being fetched.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the one parameter's format and semantics. It clearly defines the three syntax forms with examples, making the regex pattern meaningful.

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 tool fetches verses using Quran range syntax, with specific examples covering single, range, and whole sura. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_verse (single verse) and search.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: whenever a structured Quran range reference is provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_verse for a single verse or search for keyword queries.

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