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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the output preserves distinctions between original text, translation, and commentary, and that source and reference are included. This is meaningful beyond the structured 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 with no filler. The main action is stated first, the search-result relationship is explicit, and the return-preservation behavior is mentioned efficiently.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: the full passage, source, reference, and preserved categories. For a simple read operation with a single well-documented parameter, this is sufficient even though exact formatting details are not specified.

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 schema already describes the single path parameter fully with examples and accepted URL formats, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the contextual note that the path comes from a search result, but it does not add much beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reads the full Islamic source passage from an islam_search result, including source and reference. It also clarifies that original text, translation, and commentary are kept distinct, making the tool's purpose easy to separate from search tools.

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?

It clearly states the input comes from an islam_search result, which tells the agent when to use this tool: after search, to retrieve the full passage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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