get_dua_by_topic

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core read behavior and gives examples, but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., empty results, invalid topics), pagination, or output format. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the second sentence earning its place by pointing to a related tool. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, provides usage context via list_dua_topics, and gives examples. It does not describe the return structure in detail, but 'all du'a entries' implies a collection, which is sufficient for this complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by providing concrete examples (travel, eating, anxiety, sleeping) and directing the agent to list_dua_topics for valid topics. This adds meaningful semantics to the 'topic' parameter, though it does not fully specify all possible values or matching rules.

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 all du'a entries for a given topic, using a specific verb and resource. It also references list_dua_topics, which helps distinguish this topic-based retrieval from other dua-related tools like search_dua.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_dua_topics to see available topics, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_dua, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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