search_quran

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: AND-across-all-words matching and diacritic-insensitive Arabic search, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of describing ranking or result ordering.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the matching rule, with the diacritic detail appended where it matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and a non-obvious translation-ID default, the description leaves an agent guessing about the most error-prone input.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints that a translation is involved; it never explains that the 'translation' param takes an identifier like the default 'fra-muhammadhamidul', nor what 'limit' controls. Two of three parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 (find) and resource (verses) plus the matching semantics: every word of the query must appear, and matching covers both the translation text and the Arabic with vowel marks/accents normalized. This is enough to distinguish it from get_verses and search_hadith without opening a schema.

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 implied by the description — keyword lookup of verses — but it never says when to prefer this over get_verses (known reference) or how it relates to list_translations. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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