get_name_of_allah

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the record contents and adds a real behavioral instruction ('Quote the Arabic exactly') that no structured field encodes. It does not disclose error behavior for an unmatched name/number or precedence when both keys are given.

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. The lookup keys and returned fields are front-loaded, and the quoting caution is short and actionable.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description compensates reasonably by enumerating the returned fields and the lookup modes, and the schema covers locale/audience semantics. It falls just short by omitting fallback/error behavior and mutual-exclusivity of the name and number inputs.

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 each of the four parameters (name, locale, number, audience) is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the number/name lookup and the returned fields but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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 (Returns) and a precise resource (one of the 99 Names of Allah) plus the two lookup keys (number 1-99 or name). It also enumerates the returned fields (Arabic, transliteration, meaning, reflection, Quranic references), which clearly separates it from find_verses, get_dua and get_quran_verse.

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 either/or phrasing 'by number (1-99) or by name' implies the two invocation paths, which is light usage guidance. However, there is no when-to-use context, no mention of the sibling tools, and no statement about what happens if both keys or neither key are supplied for a tool with zero required parameters.

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