get_tajwid_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond them: results carry page-level citations and are flagged "(unreviewed)", signalling data provenance/quality. It stays silent on what happens when rule_id+version match nothing and on the size of a returned record.

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 tightly written sentence with the resource first and the qualifier "(unreviewed)" placed where it is immediately visible. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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-value explanation is rightly omitted, and annotations carry the safety semantics. The remaining gap is the complete absence of information on how to supply the two required keys, which for a two-required-param lookup is a meaningful shortfall.

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% and both parameters are required, yet the description says nothing about rule_id or version — no format, no hint that version identifies a Tajwid edition, no pointer to a tool that yields valid values. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Read a local Tajwid rule record") plus what is attached (page-level citations), which separates it from list_tajwid_rules (collection) and analyze_qaloun_tajwid (analysis). The word "local" hints at a distinction from a remote/source counterpart, but no sibling is named 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 statement of when to call this rather than list_tajwid_rules, get_source_page, or analyze_qaloun_tajwid, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only steer is implicit in the word "local" and the singular "record", leaving the agent to infer it from the name alone.

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