al_montaka

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that category fetching is unstable, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or what happens on errors. The return shapes are partially described, but not fully (e.g., what 'data' contains). This is adequate but could be richer.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and the key warning, followed by a structured action mapping. The mapping is efficient and easy to scan, though it is lengthy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure (bulleted mapping) aids readability. Slightly verbose but justified by the number of actions.

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 6 parameters and 13 actions, making it complex. The action mapping provides essential parameter expectations, but the output schema is absent and the description does not fully specify return structures beyond a few examples. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is helpful but not complete; it could detail the shape of the returned data or typical error responses.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does, by mapping each action to its parameters and expected return types (e.g., `list_contents` takes `page` int, returns { data: [], meta: {} }). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists types without context. The action mapping effectively documents all parameters for each action, greatly aiding the agent.

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 states the tool accesses Al Montaka to fetch general content and provides a detailed action mapping listing each action, its parameters, and return shapes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quran_services or islamhouse_library, which focus on different content. The purpose is specific, with a verb (fetch/access), resource (Al Montaka), and scope (general content).

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 explicitly warns that category-based fetching is unstable upstream, advising to use it for general content instead, which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the warning implies a temporary limitation. This is clear context, though not fully explicit about exclusions.

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