get_dua

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose output traits (curated corpus, source and grading 'where recorded') and a genuine safety instruction to show any crisis_resource block verbatim, which is valuable. However, it says nothing about failure behavior for a missing id/context, locale fallback, or result limits.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The verbatim-display instruction is appended rather than integrated, but it earns its place as an operational rule.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output nature, and a safety directive reasonably well. Still missing are the mutually exclusive id/context rule, locale fallback behavior, and empty-result handling, which leaves the agent guessing at edge cases.

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% with 4 well-documented parameters (id, locale, context, audience), so the baseline is 3. The description's example contexts ('anxiety', 'travel', 'gratitude') merely repeat the schema's own examples and add no new meaning for any parameter.

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 ('Returns du'as from a curated du'a corpus') with scope ('for a life context') and the accompanying metadata ('source and grading'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the Quranic/name-of-Allah siblings by virtue of being the du'a corpus tool, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'for a life context (e.g. anxiety, travel, gratitude)', which tells the agent the input shape but not when to prefer this over find_verses or get_quran_verse. The id-vs-context exclusivity and locale/audience selection rules live only in the schema, and no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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