search_islamic_sources

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does say the call returns source text and citation fields, but says nothing about ranking, result ordering, whether indexes/hadith_grade narrow or widen results, or any rate/permission constraints for a multi-corpus search over 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage.

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 tight sentences with the search scope front-loaded and the return shape second; nothing is wasted. It is structurally clean but so brief that the second sentence mostly duplicates what the output schema already declares.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the tool has 4 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations. Given that surface area, the description is too thin — an agent cannot know what values are valid for indexes or hadith_grade, or how to disambiguate this from the reference-lookup siblings.

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 every parameter is bare in the schema, and the description compensates for none of them. The non-obvious ones — indexes (which corpus to search?), hadith_grade (which grading vocabulary?), and limit (cap on what?) — are exactly the semantics an agent needs and they receive no explanation.

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 ("Search") and enumerates the resource domains it covers (Quran, Hadith, Tafsir, dua), which is far better than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling reference lookups (lookup_quran_reference, lookup_hadith_reference, lookup_dua), so an agent cannot tell whether this is a keyword search across sources or a lookup.

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 guidance, no precondition, and no mention of any alternative. An agent must infer for itself that this is the broad search tool while the siblings are single-source lookups, which the description never states.

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