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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the response structure (per-edition summary with name, license, lines present, missing, differing, then differing lines with differing words) and normalization rules (case, punctuation, ṁ/ṃ ignored). It does not mention pagination behavior or error conditions, which are only in the schema, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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-loads the purpose and edition list, then specifies accepted input forms, then explains the answer shape and normalization rules. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a complex, five-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing pieces: what the returned summary contains, what constitutes a difference, and what normalization is applied. Pagination parameters are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by mapping enum codes like bjt and my to human-readable edition names (Buddha Jayanti, Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana, etc.), which the schema does not do, and by clarifying the acceptable id formats in prose.

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 (compare) and resource (Pali Canon editions), names the exact editions involved, and distinguishes this from translating by focusing on line-by-line edition differences. An agent can immediately tell this apart from compare_translations.

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?

Explains that the tool accepts a sutta, a line, or a range, with concrete examples, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name when to prefer compare_translations instead, but the distinction is strongly implied by the edition-vs-translation framing.

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