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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the payload contains (each line in Gurmukhi, romanized transliteration, and English), which is behavior beyond the annotations, but says nothing about page size, limits, or ordering.

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 two sentences are tight and front-loaded. The third sentence is undifferentiated multi-feature boilerplate that reads like a store listing rather than tool guidance, diluting 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 simple single-parameter read with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, in which languages, keyed by Ang. No output schema exists, but the content-language disclosure compensates adequately; only pagination/size behavior is 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% and the single 'ang' parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, range, and meaning. The description's 'Every line on an Ang' adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource: retrieve every line on an Ang, with the content formats (Gurmukhi, transliteration, English). It hints at the sibling landscape ('Ang and shabad lookup', 'whole books from the Library') but never cleanly distinguishes get_ang from gurbani_get_shabad or gurbani_read_book, which is the main clarity gap.

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 closing sentence is an app-level feature dump ('daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time') rather than a routing rule. It never says when to choose this tool over gurbani_get_shabad, gurbani_get_reading, or gurbani_read_book, so the agent must infer.

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