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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that nothing outside the site's quote list is returned (consistent with openWorldHint=false) and the '[no key]' auth note, but it says nothing about miss behavior for an unknown reference or any rate/limit constraints.

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?

It is short and has no obvious filler, but it is poorly front-loaded: the lead sentence explains the return payload and the second sentence largely restates the openWorldHint=false annotation. The '[no key]' fragment is cryptic and unintegrated.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the returned quotation fields is redundant budget spent, while the input — the format of 'reference' — is left unexplained. For a one-parameter lookup tool this leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single required 'reference' parameter — yet it never explains what a reference is (a quote ID? a surah:ayah citation? a hadith number?). The first sentence describes the return payload (translation name, source URL) rather than the input, leaving the one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 names the resource type (a Qur'an or hadith quotation) rather than stating the action the tool performs; 'lookup' is never spelled out as a verb. It does distinguish the resource from siblings like get_bible_passage or get_article, so the agent can tell what domain it covers, but the purpose is framed as an entity description rather than a task.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_bible_passage, get_verse, or search. The only usage-adjacent hint is '[no key]', which signals no auth is required but says nothing about when this lookup is appropriate.

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