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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results come in Sanskrit plus transliteration and English, but says nothing about pagination, missing-verse behavior, or error handling.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, but the second sentence is generic app marketing spanning five features and dilutes focus. The title is also truncated ('A verse or range (e.g'), adding noise.

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 2-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it names the inputs' format and the returned content languages. What is missing is routing guidance against the many gita siblings.

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 both chapter (1-18) and verse are documented in the schema, and the description adds only the '47-51' range format which the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 first sentence states a specific resource — a verse or range (e.g. 47-51) — and the return content (Sanskrit with transliteration and English). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never contrasts itself with gita_get_chapter or gita_get_reading, which also return scripture text.

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 second sentence is app-level blurb ('daily verses, plans, search and verse lookup; whole books from the Library') that names sibling capabilities without saying when to call this tool versus them. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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