lookup_dua

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read one ... item' implies a read-only single-record fetch, but nothing is said about behavior when the item is absent, whether a slug must come from a known collection list, or rate/auth constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every element (verb, cardinality, resource, lookup keys) earns its place. It borders on under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is tight.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is minimally adequate: return values are covered by the output schema and safety is implied by 'Read'. However, the origin of the required identifiers and not-found behavior are left unexplained, which an agent would need to call this confidently.

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 carry the meaning. It does identify both keys and clarifies that collection_slug is a slug identifier and item_id selects one item within it, but it gives no format examples or constraints, leaving gaps the schema does not fill.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precisely scoped resource ('one dua or adhkar item'), and names the two lookup keys. The resource domain (dua/adhkar) is naturally distinct from sibling lookups for hadith and Quran references, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema, though it is not stated explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'by collection slug and item ID' hints that identifiers must already be known (implying a search step first), but the description never says this or points to search_islamic_sources as the way to obtain them.

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