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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds the shape of each returned line (Gurmukhi + transliteration + English), which is real information beyond the annotations. It says nothing about response size across the 1–1430 range or pagination, leaving the main behavioral unknown unaddressed.

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 sentence duplicates the tool title verbatim, so it spends space restating structured metadata. The second sentence is a sprawling semicolon-joined list of unrelated app features (daily shabad, plans, search, books) that does not earn its place in this tool's definition and actively dilutes the front-loaded signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does name the three content streams per line. However, for a getter spanning 1430 pages it omits any notion of volume, pagination, or error behavior when 'ang' is out of range, so the picture is only partially complete.

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%: the single 'ang' parameter carries its own description and 1–1430 bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema is complete for a one-parameter tool.

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 opening sentence states a concrete verb-less but unambiguous action: retrieving 'every line on an Ang' with the three content forms (Gurmukhi, transliteration, English). That is a specific resource with clear scope. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like get_shabad or get_reading, and the trailing sentence 'Gurbani: daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup; whole books from the Library' is an app-wide feature list rather than a statement of what this tool does.

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 sentence tells the agent when to pick get_ang over get_shabad, get_reading, get_card, or read_book. The second sentence name-drops 'shabad', 'search' and 'Library' without tying them to any decision condition, so it reads as broad product context rather than routing guidance. An agent must guess from the name alone.

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