get_counter_recommendation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a repetition count and virtues, which is useful, but it does not mention error behaviors (e.g., invalid/nonexistent ID), data format, or whether the operation is read-only. The description gives some transparency but lacks 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key output without waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks detail about the output structure (e.g., what exactly 'virtues' includes) and edge-case behavior. It does not explain the meaning of 'recommended count' or how it relates to other adhkar tools, leaving some gaps.

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 for explaining the parameter. It only repeats 'by its ID' without elaborating on what a dhikr_id looks like, where to find it, or any constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.

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: returning the recommended repetition count and virtues for a specific dhikr by ID. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource (dhikr recommendation), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like get_morning_adhkar.

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 phrase 'by its ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a single dhikr's recommendation rather than listing all adhkar, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., get_morning_adhkar). Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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