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 one useful behavioral detail — results are ordered by best match — but says nothing about result count, matching semantics, or fallback when nothing matches.

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 search preamble is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence ('Bhagavad Gita: daily verses, plans, search and verse lookup; whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time') is app marketing that does not describe this tool's behavior and pads the definition.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the essentials are present and annotations cover safety. It stops short of describing the shape of the search response or its limits, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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% with a single documented 'q' parameter that already includes the example 'duty or fear'. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for schema-complete cases 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search the curated readings') plus the ranking behavior ('best match first'), which distinguishes it from gita_get_reading and gita_list_readings. The remaining clause is app-level boilerplate rather than tool-specific, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus gita_get_reading, gita_get_verse, or gita_list_readings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. 'Best match first' is a ranking note, not usage direction.

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