islamhouse_quran_author_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'get details', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling, or rate limits. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 has no output schema and there are similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not hint at what details are returned, nor does it provide enough context to differentiate it from other author-related tools.

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 covers both parameters (id and language) with descriptions 'Author ID' and 'Language code', achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get IslamHouse Quran reciter/author details' clearly states the action (get details) and the resource (Quran reciter/author from IslamHouse). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'islamhouse_author_details' which also deals with author details but potentially for non-Quran authors.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are similar tools like 'islamhouse_author_details' and 'islamhouse_list_authors', and no context is given for when to choose this one.

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