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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds significant behavioral context: it first verifies wording against an approved canon, separates canonical text from modern explanation, and implies a requirement for verification. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail the explanation's limitations or the verification process.

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 is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value: the directive, the verification process, and the user guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and high schema description coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and its verification role. It could be more complete by hinting at the output structure, but the output schema handles that. The description is sufficient for a medium-complexity tool with four parameters and an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the passage is the primary input and the tool will verify and explain it, but it doesn't elaborate on title or canonical_id beyond schema descriptions. The description emphasizes the passage parameter and the verification purpose, slightly enhancing the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify then explain a Buddhist passage, with a strong directive to use it before explaining any quotation. It distinguishes itself by indicating it verifies wording against Jueban's canon and keeps the canonical quotation separate from the modern explanation. This makes it distinct from siblings like search_buddhist_canon.

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?

The description is explicit about when to use this tool: always call it before explaining a specific quotation, and not to explain from memory while it is available. It also clarifies that the user does not need to mention Jueban, providing clear usage context without needing to name alternatives explicitly.

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