fanar_islamic_qa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses several non-obvious traits: answers must be presented with citations, never as a fatwa, madhab/source filters require key entitlement, and throughput is ~50 requests/minute. It omits auth/permission details beyond entitlement and says nothing about the response shape, but the behavioral context is substantially richer than the schema alone.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by presentation rules and operational limits. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the rate-limit sentence sits a bit awkwardly at the end without a heading.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage make this a high-burden case. The description covers purpose, presentation ethics, and rate limits, but leaves return-format expectations and several parameter semantics undocumented, so an agent still has gaps before invoking correctly.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for model (Fanar-Sadiq-2), madhab, and preferred/excluded sources via the 'madhab and source filters' clause, but leaves max_tokens, restrict_to_islamic, and question's semantics entirely unexplained, covering only about half the parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ask Fanar-Sadiq an Islamic question and get an answer grounded in cited sources'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like fanar_chat and fanar_deep_research. It also names the model tier (Fanar-Sadiq-2) and its added filtering capability, so an agent can differentiate the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use it for Islamic questions, show references with the answer, and present results as a cited answer rather than a fatwa. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. fanar_chat) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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