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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: results are filtered by display rights and are deliberately non-actionable (not promoted to executable rules). It stops short of describing result shape or limit behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the rights constraint and the non-executable-rules guarantee front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the rights caveat is a genuinely useful addition. However, with 0% param coverage and no usage routing, an agent cannot tell how to use the filters or when to pick this over sibling search tools.

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 0% across four parameters (query, limit, tradition, reviewStatus), so the schema gives the agent no semantics at all. The description supplies no meaning for any of them – it never explains what 'tradition' or 'reviewStatus' filter on, or what limit bounds. Substantial compensation was required and none is present.

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?

Specific verb (searches) plus resource (passage metadata) with an unusual scope qualifier: returns text only when display rights permit. It implicitly contrasts with rule-oriented siblings via 'never become executable rules automatically', but never names an alternative such as search_reviewed_rules or explore_lal_kitab_sources.

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?

Usage is only implied: the rights-gating and the 'not executable rules' clause suggest this is for exploratory source lookup rather than authoritative rule retrieval. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative is given despite several plausible siblings.

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