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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context with 'line by line' and 'read a passage at a time', hinting at incremental/passage-based output beyond what annotations provide, but does not describe return format, pagination mechanics, or error behavior.

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 opens with a vague slogan ('Scroll the Gurbani') rather than the core action, then appends a long, run-on third sentence enumerating unrelated Gurbani capabilities. That third sentence does not earn its place for this specific tool and distracts from the narrower purpose. The structure is not front-loaded with the essential distinction.

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 tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what the tool returns (full reading text, line-by-line stream, or plan metadata) and does not help the agent distinguish it from similar sibling tools. Given the low complexity and safe-read annotations, 3 is the minimum viable score.

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%, so the single required id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that the tool works on 'one reading or plan' without adding format, validation, or lookup rules beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a verb ('Scroll', 'read') and resource ('Gurbani', 'one reading or plan'), but the third sentence lists features of the broader Gurbani namespace (daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup) that belong to sibling tools, muddying what this specific tool does. 'One reading or plan, line by line' is the only truly specific phrase, and it is not enough to clearly distinguish from gurbani_get_shabad or gurbani_read_book.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description never names an alternative sibling tool or states the condition under which this tool should be chosen over gurbani_list_readings, gurbani_read_book, or gurbani_get_ang. The usage must be inferred entirely from the schema parameter.

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