check_shariah_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it names the governing methodology (AAOIFI standards 59 and 21) and enumerates the returned fields (status, justification, category, audit link), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not state behavior for unknown or unsupported tickers, nor whether verdicts are binary or graded beyond 'category'.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return contract following immediately. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the methodological basis and the shape of the response, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure behavior for unrecognized tickers.

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 parameter already documents accepted forms (symbol or full name) with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or resolution detail beyond it, 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 ('Check') and resource ('a cryptocurrency') scoped to a named standard set (AAOIFI No. 59 and No. 21), which is far more specific than a bare 'compliance check'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings get_halal_index_summary or list_halal_coins, though the singular 'a cryptocurrency' implies a single-asset lookup.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The singular phrasing 'Check if a cryptocurrency is...' implicitly signals this is the per-asset counterpart to the list/summary siblings, but the agent must infer that routing decision rather than being told.

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