quran

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format and billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), and 'Lists' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral details, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the billing detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed, the output format, and the cost. It could be slightly more explicit about the response structure, but the low complexity makes the description sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all the available editions') and specifies the output format ('prettified json format'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fonts_json and get_info_json by naming a distinct resource.

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 description implies usage: use this tool when you need a list of all available editions. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It adds billing information ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Lists') or any other side effects. The billing detail provides some transparency beyond the schema, but other behavioral context is missing.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose, but it contains a grammatical error (missing period/space between 'available' and 'Billing'). It is concise with no redundant words; the billing note is extra but relevant. The minor formatting issue prevents a perfect score.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and adds billing context. It does not detail return format (though the name implies JSON) or any limitations, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter documentation because there are none to explain, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Lists') and resource ('arabic fonts'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_editions_json, get_info_json) by specifying the domain as fonts, which is a concrete and distinct resource.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when needing Arabic fonts), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the tool list is limited, the purpose alone guides selection, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is useful cost context, but it does not mention anything about read-only behavior, response format, or potential limitations. 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the billing note. However, it is a single run-on sentence with missing spaces after commas, which slightly harms readability but does not waste words.

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 simple zero-parameter info tool, the description sufficiently explains what details are provided (juzs, sajdas, rukus, etc.) and mentions cost, which covers the essential context. No output schema exists, so it could benefit from noting the return format, but this is not critical for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because none exist.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('quran') and lists concrete examples ('number of juzs, sajdas, rukus'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_editions_json and get_fonts_json.

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?

It implies usage when the user needs Quran structural details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The siblings are different resource types, but no direct comparison is made.

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