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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the search is meaning-based and asks for plain-language input, but it does not detail result format, pagination, or limits. This is sufficient but not rich.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the resources being searched and immediately follows with the usage instruction. No filler words; every word 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and safe annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what is searched and how to formulate the query. Return format is not specified, but given the simple search nature and lack of output schema, this is an acceptable minor gap.

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 already fully describes the query parameter with an example (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantic guidance with 'by meaning rather than naming a reference', which clarifies how to formulate the query beyond the schema's generic description.

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' and specifies the exact resources: Quran, hadith, and names of Allah. It further distinguishes the tool by emphasizing 'by meaning' and 'plain language' rather than referencing, which separates it from sibling tools like prayer_verse or general 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?

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool: ask a question in plain language rather than naming a reference. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance on query formulation is actionable and the sibling tool list helps differentiate.

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