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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the census return shape (id, title, match count, metaphor count, reader link), the Pali-only default, the ranking order (definers first, then named-after, then by frequency), the 40-sutta default split, and that metadata.totalFiles reports the true count when truncated. It omits auth/permission needs and pagination, but is otherwise unusually transparent about behavior.

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?

The purpose and mode constraints are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by worked regex examples and then return/routing details. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause conveys non-obvious information rather than 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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return payload, ordering, default limit composition, and truncation signaling. That is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only auth and deeper pagination semantics are unaddressed.

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: it explains that include_segments returns matched Pali lines, include_translations implies segments, and that limit accepts a number or 'all' with strict capping backstopped by metadata.totalFiles. This goes beyond restating the schema fields.

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 (search), resource (the Pali Canon on dhamma.gift), and the exact matching modes accepted (keyword/substring or REGEX, min 3 letters, no semantic search). The purpose is unambiguous and an agent can immediately tell this is a regex/text search over a defined corpus.

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?

Gives clear context: 'no semantic search' excludes the obvious alternative approach, and example patterns ('kata.*dukkha') show the intended usage for finding term definitions. However, it never compares itself to the sibling tools (get_text, compare_translations, list_structure) or states when one of those should be preferred instead.

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