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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what is returned in each mode (collections, books with sutta counts, languages with translators, or sutta titles). However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor mentions the 200-sutta cap behavior beyond the schema, pagination, or any other operational constraint.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clean no-argument/with-prefix structure. Every clause carries information; slightly telegraphic phrasing but no wasted sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so for both modes (collections/books/languages vs. titled suttas). For a single optional-parameter listing tool this is close to complete, with only minor gaps around read-only status and result size limits.

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, but the description adds real meaning by explaining what happens when prefix is omitted versus supplied ("the suttas under it with titles"), effectively documenting the parameter's conditional effect. This goes beyond the schema's own example-based prefix description.

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 scope statement ("What texts exist") and precisely delineates two modes of operation: no-argument collection/books/languages listing and prefix-based sutta listing. It clearly reads as a structural navigation tool, distinguishable from get_text, search, and compare_translations by its catalog-oriented output, though it never names those 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?

It explains when to use each argument mode (no args vs. with prefix), which is genuine usage guidance, but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_text or search, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the output description rather than stated as routing guidance.

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