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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious default that Sujato (en_sujato) is excluded unless named, but says nothing about response shape, ordering, or limits.

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, zero waste, purpose front-loaded ahead of the id-source instruction and the Sujato exclusion caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

A read-only lookup with full schema coverage; the description covers purpose, id provenance, and the key default filter. Missing only return-shape detail, which matters slightly more here since there is no output schema.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with examples. The description restates the segment-id format and the Sujato inclusion rule, which the schema also covers, adding little syntax or meaning beyond it. 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 and resource: retrieve one canon segment with the Pali root and all available translations 'side by side.' The comparison framing is concrete, though it doesn't explicitly contrast its purpose against siblings get_text/search.

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?

Tells the agent where the required id comes from ('Use a segment id from search/get_text') and flags the Sujato default caveat so the agent knows when to name translators. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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