find_verses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (reference, Tanzil Arabic, Pickthall English) and adds a genuine output-handling rule ('Quote the Arabic exactly'), but says nothing about empty results, result ranking, or why locale affects crisis resources rather than translation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return shape, then a single actionable constraint. No filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read-only keyword search with 100% schema coverage, and the description substitutes for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. It is close to complete, though the unusual locale/crisis-resource coupling is left unexplained.

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%, so all four parameters (query, limit, locale, audience) are already documented in the schema with examples, bounds, and enum meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches AskSakina's thematic index for Quran verses') and the retrieval mode ('by topic keyword'), which implicitly separates it from a reference-based verse lookup. It does not name or contrast with the close sibling get_quran_verse, so routing still requires inference.

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 'by topic keyword' – an agent can infer this is for topical lookup rather than lookup by surah/ayah reference – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among get_quran_verse, get_dua, and get_name_of_allah.

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