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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing the exact metadata classes returned and by explicitly stating that source body text is not republished, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or output shape beyond the field list.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return content, no filler. Every clause earns its place by naming returned metadata or the body-text restriction.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. The description still provides enough scope (what metadata is exposed) and a key limitation (no body text), making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

With zero input parameters, the 0-param baseline is 4. The schema has no parameters to document, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the resource set: source families, locators, coverage counts, lexical risk signals, and disclosure policy. This is clear, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings such as analyze_lal_kitab or search_source_passages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without republishing source body text' implies a boundary (use this for coverage metadata, not for retrieving passages), but the description never states when to choose this over sibling tools or names an alternative. Usage is therefore only inferable.

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