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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the return format (divan citations like G1393:1) and the exact-match nature of the search. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or address edge cases (e.g., no results, pagination), leaving a small gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core function, followed by return format and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary details.

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 description covers the tool's scope, return format, and usage guidance, and an output schema is present, reducing the need to explain return values. It lacks explicit pagination or limit details, but these are likely handled by the output schema or standard search expectations, leaving the description adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (query has a description, limit and offset do not). The description adds 'exact Persian words' for query but provides no explanation or guidance for limit and offset, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage despite the need to do so.

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 performs full-text search across Rumi's ghazals (Divan-e Shams), distinct from the Masnavi, and explicitly returns beyts with divan citations. It differentiates from sibling tools by noting the alternative search_divan_meaning for theme-based search.

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 provides a usage condition: 'Use when you know the exact Persian words' and recommends switching to search_divan_meaning for themes in any language. This clear guidance distinguishes the tool from its sibling and tells users exactly when to apply it.

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