fanar_validate_quotations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses output semantics (verified quotations tagged and linked to canonical sources, untagged means unverified), a hard authentication dependency (requires Fanar-Sadiq-2 on the key), and a rate limit (~200 req/min). It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then output behavior, then operational constraints. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the auth and rate-limit details are the only parts that could arguably be trimmed for a simpler consumer.

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?

With no output schema, the description must cover return behavior and it does (tagged/linked vs. untagged/unverified). It also covers the key requirement and rate limit. Only the read-only vs. mutating nature is left unstated, which is a minor omission for a validation tool.

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?

There is a single 'text' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying the kinds of text accepted (LLM answer, draft, article), but adds no format, size, or encoding guidance beyond that.

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 compound verb (detect and verify) and a precise resource (Qur'an and hadith quotations) with the input domain spelled out. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like fanar_moderate or fanar_islamic_qa without opening a 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 concrete usage contexts (LLM answer, draft, article), making it clear when this tool applies. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or pointing to a sibling alternative, so it is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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