قائمة قراء القرآن الكريم

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 adds useful context that results are available reciters with their narrations from mp3quran.net and that filtering is optional, but it omits read-only status, pagination or rate limits, auth needs, and what an unfiltered call returns.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loading the core action and source before the optional filtering note. It contains no filler and every sentence contributes.

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 one-parameter list/search tool with no output schema, the description states the resource, source, returned narrations, and optional filter, which is nearly enough to call it correctly. It could add return structure or pagination details, but those are minor omissions.

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%, and the single 'query' parameter is already documented as an optional partial-name filter. The description repeats that same semantics without adding syntax, format, or matching behavior detail, so the 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 names a specific verb ('يبحث' / searches) and resource (قراء القرآن الكريم / Quran reciters) and identifies the data source (mp3quran.net), so the agent knows this is a reciter-listing tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_quran or get_surah_audio, so sibling differentiation relies mainly on the tool name.

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?

The description only explains that an optional partial-name filter can be passed. It gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the seven sibling tools.

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