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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that results are lightweight (ids, titles, page URLs) rather than full text, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or behavior on zero matches.

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, zero filler, with the capability statement front-loaded and the routing instruction second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

A single-parameter, read-only search tool with a full output schema; the description need not explain return values and still summarizes them briefly. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already carries example strings, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by widening the semantic range of `query` beyond literal titles to aliases, first lines, phrases, deity names, types, and either Devanagari or Latin script, which the schema examples alone do not make explicit.

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 (search) and a precisely scoped resource (Pocket Pothi's verified Hindu prayer texts), and enumerates what the query can match: name, alias, first line, phrase, deity or type. The closing clause distinguishes it from fetch/get_text, which retrieve full text, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes full-text retrieval to fetch or get_text, which is a concrete when-to-use-another rule. It does not address other sibling paths such as browsing everything (list_texts) or link generation, and states no exclusions, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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