قائمة إذاعات القرآن الكريم المباشرة

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that results include streaming links (useful output context). However it says nothing about result size, ordering, pagination, or whether the stream URLs are static or live-session bound — all relevant for a radio-streaming tool.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the payload detail (streaming links) at the end. No filler, no redundancy.

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 single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and payload sufficiently. The only real gap is that, absent an output schema, it could say more about the shape/ordering of the returned station list.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in-schema as a partial-name filter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filtering, but the schema already handles it adequately.

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 ('يعيد' = returns) and resource ('قائمة إذاعات القرآن الكريم المباشرة') plus what the payload contains ('روابط البث' = streaming links). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like list_surahs and list_reciters, though the description never names or contrasts those siblings 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the optional filtering behavior, and no routing advice relative to search_quran or the other list_* tools. The agent must infer that this is a browse-the-catalog call 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.