get_dua_by_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return all du'a entries', which is adequate but does not elaborate on any other behaviors (e.g., whether the topic is case-sensitive, what happens if the topic doesn't exist, or if there are rate limits). The description is minimal in this dimension.

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 consists of two short sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides actionable guidance (use list_dua_topics). Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential: what it returns and how to discover valid topics. It does not mention error handling (e.g., missing topic) or the structure of the returned entries, but these are partly addressed by the tool's simplicity. The description is nearly complete given the context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'topic' is for a given topic and provides examples (travel, eating, anxiety, sleeping). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property name. However, it lacks details on expected format (e.g., exact keywords, case sensitivity) or constraints.

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 'Return all du'a entries for a given topic' with a specific verb and resource. It provides example topics and mentions list_dua_topics as a companion tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_dua, which could be used for text-based searching. This leaves potential ambiguity about when to use each.

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 advises using list_dua_topics to see available topics, which provides helpful context for usage. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for text-based searching, use search_dua) or any alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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