search_fatwas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details: it returns ranked results with title, madhhab, source and URL, and explicitly says the full text requires a separate get_fatwa call. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting behavior, or any rate limits, so transparency is only partially enhanced beyond annotations.

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 two well-structured sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance following. Every sentence earns its place, providing purpose, scope, result format, and a directive to the next step without any fluff or repetition.

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 search tool with an existing output schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context: when to use, what results contain, and how to proceed (call get_fatwa). It omits any explanation of limit semantics or result ordering, but the schema covers limits and the output schema defines the return structure, so the description is adequate.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by giving an example query ('wiping over socks in wudu') and by explicitly pointing to list_sources when using the source parameter. Yet it does not explain parameter relationships or default behaviors beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific action (search) on a specific resource (fatwas on IslamQA.org) and the scope (keyword or question). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_fatwa by noting that it returns summaries and that full answers require a follow-up call, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with browse_fatwas.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('whenever a question concerns Islamic rulings, fiqh, worship or practice and you want sourced scholarly answers rather than your own knowledge') and provides a clear trigger condition. It also hints at an alternative (using own knowledge) but does not explicitly mention when to use siblings like browse_fatwas, so a small gap remains.

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