get_asma_ul_husna

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states this is a retrieval operation ('Return all...') with no side effects, and it lists the exact data fields (Arabic, transliteration, meaning, explanation). It does not mention ordering, response format, or rate limits, but for a simple deterministic retrieval with zero parameters, this level of detail is sufficient.

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 primary purpose ('Return all 99 Names') followed by supporting detail (content fields). There is no redundancy or wasted wording, making it highly concise and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It specifies the complete set (99) and the fields included, which is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline according to the rubric is 4. The input schema is empty and the description correctly adds no parameter details, as there are none to explain. No further semantic value is needed.

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's function: 'Return all 99 Names of Allah (Asma ul-Husna) with Arabic, transliteration, meaning, and explanation.' The verb 'Return' is specific, and the resource ('all 99 Names') is fully identified with details about the content. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_name_of_allah (single name) and search_asma_ul_husna (search functionality).

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 a clear use case: use when you need the complete list of the 99 Names. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the wording 'all 99 Names' naturally signals this is the comprehensive retrieval tool compared to singular or search variants. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided, but the context is clear enough.

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