DharmikStudio

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload shape: all episodes with links, key points, sources, and article text. It says nothing about behavior on an invalid or ambiguous id, or whether large works are truncated.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the object ('the full public record of one work or place') and then enumerates contents. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the record's fields. What remains missing is the boundary against the get_item sibling and any error/truncation behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is well documented in the schema itself (result id, page URL, or slug). The description contributes nothing further about accepted id formats or failure modes; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific resource (one work or place) and enumerates exactly what the record contains – episodes with links, key points, sources, article text – so an agent knows this is the detail-fetch, not a listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_item, whose name suggests overlapping behavior, leaving that ambiguity.

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 full public record of one work' implies this is the follow-up call after a search returns an id, but the description never says when to use it instead of get_item, search, or search_catalogue. Usage is inferable from the 'full record' framing rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains (episodes/lessons, listen/watch links, length, access, sources, language versions, RSS feed), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then packs the returned-content list densely, with no filler. Slightly list-heavy, but every clause carries information.

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 and one required parameter, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the payload. It falls short only on error/not-found behavior and on whether the returned details include ids for follow-up calls.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains accepted id forms (result id, page URL, slug). The description adds only a marginal hint that the target may be a work or a temple/place, not new syntax or formatting guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Structured details of one work... or a temple/place') and enumerates the entity types it covers (series, course, book, article, video). It clearly delimits a single-item detail lookup, though it never names a sibling (search, fetch, search_catalogue) to contrast with.

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 only implied: 'one work' signals a single-item lookup, and the schema's mention of 'a result id from search' hints at the retrieve-after-search flow. The description itself offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not or guidance on choosing this over fetch or search.

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?

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results include counts and browse pages, but gives no further behavioral detail such as ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence fragment with zero waste. Every element—resource scope and returned extras—earns its place.

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, read-only tool with annotations covering its safety profile, the description does enough by stating what data is returned. Without an output schema it could say more about the response structure, but the core information needed to select and call it is present.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has full coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate, with no gaps the description could reasonably fill.

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 names the specific resource (the catalogue's categories and subcategories) and the useful payload (counts and browse pages). It is clear what data the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_catalogue or fetch.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need the taxonomy overview rather than a search or item lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds ordering (newest first) and the day-window bound, but says nothing about result-set size, the limit parameter, or how 'new episodes' are detected. Adds some context but not rich 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope, and the optional modifier trailing. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 small read-only browse tool this covers the essentials of scope and ordering, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, an agent still lacks information about page size/limit semantics and what a returned 'work' looks like. Adequate, not 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It gives meaning to 'days' (recency window) and enumerates the 'section' values, but the 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 60) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of three params opaque.

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 resource (works published or given new episodes), a bounded time window (last N days, 1-30) and an ordering (newest first), which is enough to separate it from search/fetch siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 optional section filter hints at usage ('listen, watch, read or learn'), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. search/search_catalogue/list_categories guidance and no indication of what happens when section is omitted. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating supported query languages and the shape of results: ids, titles and page URLs. It omits pagination or result-limit 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently covers return values and the follow-up fetch workflow. No wasted text.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: languages, result fields, and the id-to-fetch next step. The remaining gap is lack of differentiation from search_catalogue and no indication of result caps or ranking behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single query parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by saying the query may be in Hindi, Hinglish or English and targets the DharmikStudio catalogue. It does not add syntax or matching-mode detail.

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: search the DharmikStudio catalogue. It also names supported languages and return fields, so the agent knows what the tool is for. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling search_catalogue, which is a near-identical name.

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?

Gives clear context for using the tool and explicitly points to the next step: pass an id to fetch for full text. It does not explain when to prefer this over search_catalogue or when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'ranked' (relevance ordering), which is context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination, result shape, or what happens when no match is found.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact filter vocabulary. The semicolon-separated value lists are efficient though a little raw; nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition should say what comes back (result fields, ranking score, total count) and clarify the limit ceiling. The filter vocabularies are well covered, but the return side and the paging parameter are left entirely to inference.

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 coverage is 0% and no enums are declared, so the description does real work by listing accepted language codes and the type vocabulary (audio, video, series, course, article, book, reel) and by explaining that category takes a slug from list_categories. It leaves 'query' and 'limit' (which has a default and a max of 25 in the schema) undocumented, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Ranked search') and immediately enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows this is a catalogue search tool rather than a fetch/retrieval tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search' tool, which is the main gap.

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 'optional filters' and the agent is pointed to 'list_categories' for valid category slugs, which is a useful cross-reference. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling 'search' or 'fetch', and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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