get_evening_adhkar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns the complete set and enumerates the included fields (Arabic, transliteration, translation, source, recommended count), which goes beyond the tool name. It does not mention side effects, but for a simple read-only fetch, this level of detail is sufficient. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 directly states the action and the resource. The parenthetical clarification '(Adhkar al-Masa)' adds useful context without extra fluff. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It specifies the exact content of the return set, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it does not explicitly indicate whether the return is an array or object, but this is a minor gap given the 'complete set' phrasing. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema covers everything (100% coverage, vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the complete set of evening adhkar'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_morning_adhkar' by specifying 'evening' and including the transliteration 'Adhkar al-Masa'. The listed content fields (Arabic, transliteration, translation, source, count) make the function unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving evening adhkar, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_morning_adhkar' or mention any exclusions. The context is clear from the tool name and description, but no direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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