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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: results are capped at 3 articles returned IN FULL, with the exact payload shape (title, URL, answer, sections, FAQs, references, linked calculator/service) and dual-language coverage, which helps the agent anticipate response size.

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, front-loaded with the core action and corpus, then the return shape. The closing sentence about the author's credentials is largely promotional filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke, costing it a perfect score.

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 the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the returned fields, the 3-article cap, and language coverage. For a read-only, idempotent search tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, including an example query, the 1-3 range on limit, and the en/hi enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes 'up to 3' and 'English and Hindi' without adding format or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Searches) plus resource and scope: Trikaal Vaani's published articles across blog and Learn pages, in English and Hindi, retrieved by meaning. The corpus description implicitly separates it from text-oriented siblings like shastra_search, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'searches ... by meaning' and by the described result set, but there is no statement of when to choose this over siblings such as shastra_search or life_reading, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing itself.

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