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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the translation table is mostly empty, total_editions is usually 0, text_pali and text_english are always populated, and Thai editions are planned. This clarifies the tool's actual output behavior beyond the safety profile.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every section earns its place: a one-line summary, usage bullets, a direct sibling comparison, a format spec with example, and a critical data-state warning. The structure uses headings, bullets, and emoji to make scanning easy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a single-parameter read-only comparison tool. It covers purpose, when to use, versus siblings, segment_id format, and current data limitations. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values; instead it adds contextual caveats that are essential for correct interpretation of results.

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 the schema already describes segment_id with examples, but the description adds more: the exact segment_id format `<sutta_id>:<paragraph>.<line>`, a concrete example with meaning (mn1:171.4 – 'Nandī dukkhassa mūlaṁ'), and guidance on finding segment_ids via get_sutta or search results. This goes well beyond the schema's basic example.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare every available translation for a single segment.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool get_sutta by explicitly stating this tool targets a single segment (line level) while get_sutta returns the whole sutta.

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?

The description provides explicit 'Use this tool when' bullet points and an 'vs get_sutta' section naming the alternative and explaining when to prefer each. It also includes a caveat about the current database state, which helps set expectations about when the tool is useful.

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