quran_surah

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no further behavioral context (no note on edition fallback, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid number), so it neither helps nor contradicts.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource, the key constraint, and the variation axis all appear immediately.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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 100%, with the number range and edition slug alternatives already documented in the schema. The description merely restates both ("by number (1 to 114)", "in a specific edition") without adding format or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Get a full surah") plus scope ("by number (1 to 114) in a specific edition"), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly name how it differs from quran_ayah or quran_search, though "full surah" implicitly distinguishes it from a single-verse 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?

Usage is only implied: "full surah" suggests this is for retrieving an entire chapter rather than a verse (quran_ayah) or a search (quran_search), but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing between them is given.

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