find_quote_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: results are wording matches only and do not establish authorship or meaning, which warns the agent about false positives. It says nothing about which corpus is searched, how results are ranked or limited, or what happens when no match is found.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple at two parameters. However, the total silence on `indexes` and on the searched corpus leaves a real gap for an agent that must choose values for a non-trivial parameter.

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 for both parameters, and it only implicitly conveys that `quote` is the text being matched. The `indexes` parameter is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell from the definition what an index is, which ones are available, or that the null default presumably searches everything.

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?

"Find wording matches for a quote" gives a specific verb (find) and a specific resource (wording matches for a quote), which is meaningfully narrower than the sibling search_islamic_sources. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. The caveat about matches not proving authorship is an interpretive caution, not routing guidance, so the agent gets no help deciding between this tool and lookup_* or search_islamic_sources.

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