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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the core matching behavior ('matches the SITUATION, not the words') and gives a concrete example. It could further note limitations around interpretation or result relevance, but the disclosed behavior is substantive and non-obvious.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses every sentence to add value: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling. The parenthetical examples and the chapter-63 illustration enhance clarity without bloating.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description discloses the tool's expected return ('the chapter... and the one line to hold'). It also covers usage context and example inputs. It does not clarify the behavior of the optional `limit` parameter or the exact return format, leaving minor gaps, but overall it is complete for a focused consultation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the required `situation` parameter ('in their own words,' 'describes a situation') and provides examples. The optional `limit` parameter is not described, but its meaning is fairly inferable from its name and min/max constraints, and it is secondary to the tool's core purpose.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'find the chapter of the Tao Te Ching that speaks to it, and the one line to hold.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'matches the SITUATION, not the words,' using the example that a never-shared-word situation reaches chapter 63.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when someone describes a situation... rather than asking about the text.' It also names an alternative ('Unlike search_chapters') and clarifies what makes this tool different, providing concrete examples of applicable situations.

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