islamhouse_library

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Read-only, idempotent, public access (no auth/rate limits). Cached dynamically with real-time freshness. Fallback to English on missing translations; returns empty arrays for unknown IDs; returns 400 error payload on invalid actions or malformed parameters.' This covers safety, error handling, and caching behavior comprehensively.

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 long, but it is organized into clearly labeled sections (Behavior, Usage Guidelines, Parameters & Enums, Action Groups & Returns) and front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions. While every section earns its place, the density of information makes it slightly less concise than it could be. A tight, structured 4.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, many actions) and the lack of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It provides return shapes for each action group (e.g., taxonomy returns array of {id, name, parentId?}, listings return {data, total, page}, details return {id, title, description, attachments, locales}), plus error behavior and fallback rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is only 7%, so the description must compensate. It does so extensively: it defines each parameter (type, period, sort, kind, language variants, pagination, IDs) with enums and formats, and further groups actions and specifies which parameters apply to each action group (e.g., 'Listings' use page/limit/type, 'Details' require id). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Access IslamHouse Library for books, audios, videos, fatwas, articles, and author metadata.' It immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming exclusions: 'Excludes Quran recitations (use 'islamhouse_quran') and Hadith texts (use 'hadeethenc_services').' This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinct.

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?

A dedicated 'Usage Guidelines' section explicitly lists what to use the tool for and what not to use it for, citing the exact sibling tools to use instead ('islamhouse_quran' / 'quran_services' and 'hadeethenc_services'). This provides clear, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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