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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are relevance-ranked with the best match first — but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what a match contains.

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 ranking constraint is front-loaded well in the first sentence, but the second sentence is a grab-bag of functionality that reads as scope-creep and does not clearly earn its place in a one-parameter search tool.

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 single-required-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: purpose, ranking, and safety are all inferable. It still leaves the agent guessing about result volume and how this differs operationally from list_readings and read_book.

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% and the schema already explains q as 'Words or a bani's name to search for, for example Japji or humility.' The description adds no query syntax, matching mode, or format guidance beyond that, so 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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource (search curated readings) plus the ranking behavior ('best match first'), which distinguishes it from the lookup siblings. However, the second sentence lists 'daily shabad, plans, search, Ang and shabad lookup' — functions that appear to belong to siblings like get_today, get_ang, and get_shabad — which blurs rather than sharpens the tool's boundary.

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 statement relative to the nine siblings. Mentioning 'Ang and shabad lookup' without naming get_ang/get_shabad risks pointing the agent at the wrong tool rather than routing it correctly.

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