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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description goes further by enumerating the returned payload (ids, titles, availability of scan/transcription/translation, page URLs, partner-archive link-out cards). What is left out is pagination behaviour and what happens when nothing matches, both of which matter for a search tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the resource, then the return shape, then a compact fragment listing example subject/script values. No wasted clauses, though the trailing '...;' fragment is telegraphic and could be folded into a cleaner sentence around the parameters.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description rightly enumerates what comes back, which is a real strength. Against five parameters with no schema documentation, though, two parameters (language, limit) and any result-cap behaviour are left entirely unexplained, leaving the definition only partly 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 compensate. It gives concrete value examples for 'subject' (veda, purana, stotra) and 'script' (devanagari, sharada, grantha) and clarifies that 'query' accepts Hindi, IAST or Hinglish, thereby partly substituting for the missing enums. 'limit' and 'language' are not explained at all.

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 — searching DharmikStudio manuscripts — and names the accepted query transliterations (Hindi, IAST, Hinglish). It does not contrast itself with the sibling tools 'search' and 'search_catalogue', so the agent must infer which search surface to pick.

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 the subject matter (manuscripts, with academic subject categories and scripts), and the transliteration note tells the agent how to phrase queries. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'search_catalogue' or 'get_manuscript', and no stated preconditions or limits on result volume.

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