Lisan al-Arab crawl coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns known bookId, id range, and server paths, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, whether it performs any network calls, or what the exact response format looks like. The description is honest but lacks behavioral depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key output (bookId and id range) and then adds the dataset paths. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter metadata tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter metadata lookup, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it will get back (bookId, id range, paths). The only gap is the lack of an explicit statement about the return format or whether this is a static/local lookup, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor omission.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (bookId, id range, paths), which is the only meaningful semantic content. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does a good job of explaining the tool's output.

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 returns the known bookId and id range for a specific dictionary on islamweb.net, plus the paths used for extracted JSON/JSONL datasets. It names the exact resource (لسان العرب لابن منظور) and the specific data returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch entries, list dictionaries, or manage crawls.

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 implies this is a metadata/coordinate lookup tool for a specific dictionary, useful before starting a crawl or fetching entries. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the context signals (0 params, no output schema) and sibling names make the use case reasonably clear. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use this to get crawl coordinates before starting a crawl.'

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