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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: results are returned best-match first. It says nothing about result count, pagination, or empty-match 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 title is restated almost verbatim in the first two sentences ('Scroll the Gurbani. Search the curated readings, best match first'), which is pure duplication. The third clause then lumps in unrelated features (plans, Ang lookup, Library, passages) that do not belong to this tool, diluting an otherwise short 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the return behavior, yet it never explains what a 'reading' result contains, how many come back, or whether the search covers only curated readings or the whole corpus. The closing feature list introduces scope ambiguity that a single-purpose search tool cannot afford.

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 itself gives a concrete example ('Japji or humility'), so the description carries no additional burden. The description adds nothing about the query parameter — the phrase 'whole books from the Library, read a passage at a time' describes the family at large, not the 'q' input. Baseline 3.

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 ('Search the curated readings') with a ranking cue ('best match first'), so the agent knows this is a search tool rather than a lookup. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookups like gurbani_get_reading or gurbani_get_shabad.

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 tool versus the many sibling lookups (gurbani_get_ang, gurbani_get_shabad, gurbani_list_readings, gurbani_read_book). The trailing list of unrelated Gurbani features ('daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books') muddies rather than guides usage.

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