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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. With no output schema, the description earns credit by disclosing exactly what comes back — every line of an Ang, in Gurmukhi plus transliteration plus English — which tells the agent the shape of the payload. It stops short of pagination or size hints.

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 description repeats the title verbatim in its second sentence and opens with a soft metaphor, then ends with a broad server-wide capability menu that is not specific to this tool. The operational content is present but padded by duplication and off-topic text.

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 one-parameter read operation, annotations fully cover behavior and the schema fully documents the parameter, so the description's main remaining duty is return content — which it supplies. It is nearly complete, missing only pagination or volume expectations for a 1430-page corpus.

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%: the single 'ang' parameter is already documented as the page (1 to 1430) of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, including range and meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 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 second sentence states a specific result — every line on an Ang in Gurmukhi with transliteration and English — so the verb (retrieve lines) and resource (Ang) are clear. The opening metaphor 'Scroll the Gurbani' is vaguer, and the description never explicitly distinguishes this page-lookup from siblings like gurbani_get_shabad or gurbani_get_reading, but the resource is distinct enough to differentiate.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The trailing menu ('daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books') gestures at other capabilities but does not tell the agent which sibling to prefer for a shabad lookup versus a page lookup, leaving routing to inference.

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