بحث نصي في القرآن الكريم

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the search is unvocalized, ignores alif/ya/ta-marbuta orthographic variations, and returns matching verses with their location. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the normalization rules are non-obvious and genuinely useful context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple two-parameter nature, though the normalization clause adds density.

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 search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, including the non-obvious normalization rules. It does not explain result ordering or pagination, but those are minor gaps at this complexity.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including limit and query constraints. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 (يبحث) and resource (نص القرآن الكريم كاملًا), and describes exactly what is returned (الآيات المطابقة مع موضعها). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_ayah or list_surahs, which retrieve rather than search.

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 implies usage by framing the tool as a full-text search over the entire Quran, which is enough to tell it apart from get_ayah (single verse retrieval) or list_surahs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives.

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