lookup_hadith_reference

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; 'Read' does establish a non-mutating operation and 'including grade metadata' discloses returned content. It says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown slug or out-of-range number, nor about which collections exist, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 the access pattern first and a useful payload detail last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 no explanation, and two required params is low complexity. Still, the 0% schema coverage plus absent annotations leaves input format and miss behavior undocumented, which is more than a minor gap for a lookup tool.

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 does name both parameters (collection slug, number) and their roles in identifying a record. It stops short of describing slug format, accepted collection identifiers, or whether hadith_number is expected as a numeric string.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one Hadith'), scoped to a collection slug plus number. The resource noun alone distinguishes it from the Quran and dua lookup siblings, though it never names an alternative 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?

Implies usage by framing it as a direct single-record read keyed by collection and number, which tells the agent this is a fetch-by-identifier, not a search. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and never contrasts itself with search_islamic_sources or find_quote_source for agents that only have a partial citation.

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