list_reading_combinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention of the max_combinations cap, how wasl vs waqf modes affect results, or what 'the book's tables' means as a data source.

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 short sentence, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. The trailing parenthetical '(the book's tables)' consumes space without clarifying anything actionable.

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?

The tool takes two required nested objects with enums and constraints and exposes a complex recitation-domain result, yet the description covers none of that. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the invocation contract is wholly absent.

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 the description explains none of the three parameters. The most consequential inputs — reading_context.mode (wasl/waqf), basis, following/preceding QalounReference, stop_after_word, and max_combinations — are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call from the 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 description indicates the resource — combinations of madd readings permitted together within each ayah — but supplies no verb and leans on domain jargon ('madds', 'the book's tables') that an agent without tajwid background cannot resolve. It does not differentiate this from siblings such as analyze_qaloun_tajwid or get_tajwid_rule.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the eleven sibling tools. The agent is left to guess whether this complements or duplicates analyze_qaloun_tajwid.

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