search_dua

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'matched entries with which fields matched', giving insight into the return format. However, it doesn't explain matching behavior like substring vs. exact match or how results are ordered, though these are not critical for a basic search.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and action, and no redundant words. The second sentence adds return-value detail without fluff.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return info. It lacks explicit mention of limit semantics and result ordering, but for a search tool of this complexity, it's reasonably complete. The context signals show no nested objects, so additional parameter complexity isn't hidden.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic scope of the query parameter by listing searchable fields (Arabic text, transliteration, translation, topic). The limit parameter is not mentioned, but its purpose is somewhat self-evident from the schema's default value.

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?

Description states 'Search across all du'a and adhkar by Arabic text, transliteration, translation, or topic' which clearly identifies the tool as a cross-collection search with specific searchable fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_morning_adhkar, get_dua_by_topic, and search_asma_ul_husna.

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 through the verb 'search' and the scope 'across all', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_dua_by_topic. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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