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

The description goes beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations by disclosing that results are reference excerpts, not generated answers, and that the agent should cite sources and distinguish types of Islamic texts. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the scope and the second clarifies the output type and required handling. All information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what the agent receives (reference excerpts), what it should not do (generate answers), and how to handle results (distinguish and cite). This is adequate for a straightforward read-only search tool, though explicit mention of default limits or empty-result behavior is absent.

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%, so the input schema already documents query, limit, and collection. The description adds the list of collections and emphasizes source citation, but does not materially expand on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search') and a concrete resource (Aslam.org's Quran, hadith, names, Seerah, etc.), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like islam_read by framing this as a search across multiple collections.

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 for when to use the tool: when searching an Islamic knowledge base and needing reference excerpts rather than generated answers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance about distinguishing primary sources from interpretation helps an agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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