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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (beyt text plus structured commentary entries), the fields of each entry, and the confidence levels ('ai-draft' / 'reviewed' / 'verbatim'). It also notes the commentary is attributed to a primary source. This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not mention any side effects or error behavior.

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 three sentences long, with the purpose stated first and no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output structure, and usage guidance.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description adequately explains the return values and usage. However, there is a slight ambiguity: the description says 'beyt of the Masnavi' but the schema includes 'g:7421' which may refer to a ghazal, and this is not reconciled. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'citation', including examples like 'M1:1' and 'g:7421'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 commentary') with a clear resource ('specific beyt of the Masnavi'), and distinguishes itself by mentioning the output structure (commentary entries with source, author, language, etc.) and by giving usage examples. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like search or 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a user asks what does this beyt mean or what does <scholar> say about M1:1.' This gives clear trigger conditions, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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