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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: quotes are verified against source texts, the corpus is public-domain (Seneca, Lao Tzu, Emerson, Shakespeare, Proverbs), and results are capped at 5 lines with author/book/source.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the verification guarantee, then the return shape, then query syntax. The author parenthetical is the only mildly expendable element.

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, the description carries return-value duty and does so (up to 5 lines with author, book, source). Parameters and annotations are fully covered; only edge behavior such as no-match handling and ranking is unstated.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by characterizing 'query' as plain words or an author name (rather than boolean/phrase syntax) and by restating the 5-result ceiling tied to the limit parameter.

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: searches a library of public-domain quotes that are individually verified against their source text, and names the return shape (author, book, source). It reads as clearly distinct from one_action/take_compass by virtue of being a keyword search, but it never explicitly routes against the sibling tools.

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?

It tells the agent how to phrase a query ('use plain words: patience, grief, starting over, or an author's name'), which is useful implied guidance, but gives no when-to-use/when-not or any comparison to daily_wisdom/get_verse.

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