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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return content (Sanskrit plus whatever translations exist, implying partial availability), but says nothing about response size for a full chapter, verse ordering, or behavior for an invalid kanda/chapter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and returned content are stated up front.

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 read-only fetch with a fully documented three-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and roughly what comes back. It stops short of describing ordering or response size, which matters for a whole-chapter fetch.

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%, so kanda, chapter, and langs are already documented, including the 'defaults to all available' behavior for langs. The description only reinforces the language aspect via 'with Sanskrit and available translations'; it adds no format or naming detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with an explicit scope: fetch every verse of one sarga (chapter). The 'every verse' phrasing separates it from get_verse by implication, but no sibling is named outright.

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 bulk-per-chapter scope suggests this tool when a whole chapter is needed rather than a single verse. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_verse, search_verses, or list_kandas, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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