رابط تلاوة سورة لقارئ معيّن

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the return value is a direct audio-file link rather than audio content, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, link expiration, or any other behavioral trait.

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 compact sentence with the output type front-loaded and the prerequisite placed in a parenthetical. Every phrase contributes, with no redundant explanation.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the returned resource and the prerequisite lookup. Minor gaps remain around error cases or link validity, but no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats that reciter_id comes from list_reciters but adds no syntax, range, or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns a direct audio-file link for a specified surah and reciter. The title reinforces the same scope, and the sibling list_reciters is named, so an agent can distinguish this from text-lookup siblings like get_ayah or search_quran.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite: use list_reciters first to obtain the reciter_id. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives besides list_reciters, but the context for correct invocation is clear.

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