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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: results come back 'best match first'. It says nothing about result count, pagination, or what a 'reading' record contains.

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?

It is short and front-loads the actual purpose, but the second sentence is app-level marketing boilerplate that lists capabilities this tool does not expose (daily verses, plans, whole books) and therefore does not earn its place here.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string param, no output schema, annotations covering safety), so the definition is minimally viable. It still leaves ambiguous what corpus 'curated readings' covers and what fields a result carries, which matters when the sibling set includes both list and get variants.

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% and the schema's own description already supplies usage examples ('duty or fear'), so the description carries no additional burden. It adds no extra semantics about matching behavior (substring, fuzzy, multi-word) beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search the curated readings with best-match ordering. However, the second sentence is generic app boilerplate about verses, plans, verse lookup and whole books, which describes the whole Gita Scroller app rather than this tool, so it does not distinguish this search tool from siblings like gita_list_readings or gita_get_reading.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus gita_list_readings (browse the full index) or gita_get_reading (fetch a specific item by id). The agent must infer the search-vs-list distinction from the tool name alone.

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