search_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 full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the searchable fields but does not explain return format, result count, or confirm read-only nature. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matches, a single name, or no match) or any pagination/ordering behavior. For a simple search tool, more context is needed.

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 provides no description for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source of semantics. It effectively explains that the query can be a meaning, transliteration, or Arabic text, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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: 'Search the 99 Names of Allah' with explicit search fields (meaning, transliteration, Arabic text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asma_ul_husna (likely lists all names) and get_name_of_allah (likely returns a specific name).

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 the tool is used when you have a query to search for a name by one of the three specified fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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