analyze_qaloun_tajwid

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are 'candidate' occurrences rather than final verdicts, they are paged, and each carries its citations. It does not explain what paging means in practice or what the 1-100 ayat bound implies for behavior.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the returned artifact and finished with the scope and pagination qualifiers. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with nested selection and reading-context objects and no schema documentation at all. The description covers the output shape and the ayat cap but leaves the input surface, including the wasl/waqf distinction that drives Tajwid analysis, entirely to the agent's guesswork. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is rightly omitted, but the input gaps are too large for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. 'Paged' gestures at limit/offset and '1 to 100 ayat' at the selection size, but families, rule_ids, include_candidates, and the entire reading_context (wasl vs waqf mode, preceding/following references, stop_after_word) go unexplained.

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 description names the resource precisely: candidate Tajwid occurrences for a Qaloun ayat range, paged, each carrying citations. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_tajwid_rule or list_tajwid_rules, though it never contrasts itself with summarize_tajwid, which sounds like the closest sibling.

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 and no named alternative. The word 'candidate' hints that results are unconfirmed and that summarize_tajwid might be the aggregation path, but the agent must infer that; nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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