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

Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: it returns only traceable passages from an approved canon, and explicitly warns against using it for crisis or professional advice. This is meaningful additional context with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the call condition, followed immediately by scope and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, scope, safety boundaries, and return type hints ('source-backed', 'traceable passages'). It does not elaborate on result ordering or pagination, but those are minor for this use case and likely addressed by the 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description significantly clarifies the 'situation' parameter by framing it as a life situation to be matched to Buddhist passages. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained in the description; its purpose is only inferable from the schema's range/default, leaving some semantic weight on the agent to deduce.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('find Buddhist passages for a situation') and clearly states the tool's scope: matching a life situation to traceable passages from Jueban's approved public Buddhist canon. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on situation-to-scripture matching and source-backed perspectives.

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 explicitly states when to call ('when a user describes a life situation and asks for relevant Buddhist scripture...') and provides clear exclusions (unrelated everyday questions, legal/medical decisions, crisis situations). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_buddhist_canon, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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