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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully discloses the returned fields and that full text is excluded, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering — a real gap for a catalog-listing tool that can include 18 Gita chapters.

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 tight sentences with no waste: purpose and filtering first, return shape second. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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 simple read-only list with no output schema, the description covers both selection criteria and return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. Only pagination/limit behavior is left unaddressed.

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%, but the two enum parameters (type, deity) are self-documenting and the description confirms they act as optional filters. 'include_book_chapters' is documented in the schema itself rather than the description, so the description adds little beyond what structured fields already convey.

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 ('List') and resource ('the catalog'), reinforced by the title 'List prayers', and the parenthetical '(no full text)' implicitly separates it from get_text/fetch. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but an agent can tell it is the metadata-only enumeration tool.

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?

'Optionally filtered by deity or type' establishes when the filters apply, and '(no full text)' hints that full-content retrieval belongs elsewhere. It never states the alternative tool by name or says when to prefer search over listing, so routing still requires inference.

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