analyze_app_page

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes almost nothing beyond that: it does not explain pagination via limit/offset, what the candidate set contains, or that results depend on the reading_context, and the existing output schema is not referenced. 'Candidates' is the only behavioral signal, and it is unexplained.

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?

It is a single noun phrase with no waste, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy: for a six-parameter tool with a nested ReadingContext it gives the agent nothing to act on. A verb-first sentence stating what is returned would cost little and add much.

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 tool with a nested object schema, six parameters, and a paginated result (limit/offset), a one-line fragment is far short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, despite the output schema covering return shape. Neither the reading mode semantics nor the filtering parameters are addressed anywhere.

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 parameter meaning, yet it only implicitly corresponds to the page parameter ('a page of the verified 559-page Qaloun layout'). reading_context with its wasl/waqf modes, stop_after_word, families, rule_ids, limit and offset are all left undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The fragment does identify the resource (ayat that begin on a page of the 559-page Qaloun layout) and hints at a candidate-generation result, but it never states a verb and never explains what 'candidates' means or how the output differs from siblings like analyze_qaloun_tajwid or get_qaloun_passage. An agent can guess the domain but not the operation.

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 at all: no conditions, no prerequisites, no mention of the alternative siblings (get_qaloun_passage, analyze_qaloun_tajwid, summarize_tajwid) that an agent would have to choose between. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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