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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope behavior — only public framework material is reachable and private implementation content is out of reach — which is not derivable from annotations. It does not describe pagination or how the limit truncates results.

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 what the tool returns before the lengthy exclusion clause. The private-content sentence is long but earns its place by preventing a whole class of misuse; overall it is dense rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description is complete on scope and content types. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'resource_type' and 'limit' semantics, minor but real for a 4-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: the five element names map to the 'element' enum and the query examples clarify 'query', but 'resource_type' (pathway vs download) and 'limit' are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Finds'), resource ('public PanchaVikas resources'), and enumerates exactly what is covered: public overview, pathway summaries, and the downloadable guide. The named five-element framework and concrete query examples make it unmistakable against the mindfulness-oriented siblings.

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?

Gives explicit example queries ('public PanchaVikas resources related to Jal') to show usage, and states a hard boundary: it does NOT retrieve the private 216-session curriculum or session plans, and tells the agent how to answer such a request. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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