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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (output includes Sanskrit, transliteration, and English), but says nothing about pagination, range size limits, or error behavior for invalid chapters/verses.

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 title fragment 'A verse or range (e.g' is truncated and duplicated in the body, and the second sentence drifts into a feature list for the whole Gita Scroller app rather than this tool. Structure is muddled rather than front-loaded on what the tool does.

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 two-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive read tool with no output schema, the description does mention the returned content shape, which is the main missing piece. However, it omits any routing guidance against the many gita_* siblings, leaving the agent under-informed for selection.

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% for both parameters, including the '47-51' example and the 1-18 chapter bound, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description's 'range (e.g. 47-51)' merely echoes the schema and adds no formatting or edge-case detail (e.g. whether a range may span chapters).

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 conveys the resource (a Bhagavad Gita verse or range) and the content returned (Sanskrit, transliteration, English), but it opens with the brand name 'Gita Scroller' rather than a verb+resource statement for this specific tool. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like gita_get_chapter, gita_get_card, gita_get_reading, or gita_get_today, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 lists app-level features ('daily verses, plans, search and verse lookup; whole books from the Library') but gives no condition for choosing this tool over gita_get_chapter, gita_get_card, or gita_get_reading. There are no exclusions or alternatives stated.

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