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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are verse references with snippets and that search spans multiple language translations, but it does not describe matching behavior, ranking, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving notable gaps.

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 a single compact sentence with the purpose and return shape front-loaded. Every part earns its place: search scope, languages, and result format.

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 two-parameter read-oriented search tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core scope and return format. It does not explain ranking or matching nuances, but no output schema exists and the schema documents parameters well, so it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines both query and limit with examples, minimums, defaults, and maximums. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search' across Sanskrit and English/Hindi/Telugu translations, returning matching verse references with snippets. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling retrieval tools like get_verse and get_sarga by being a text search rather than an identifier-based lookup, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 implies usage through 'full-text search' and the supported languages, suggesting it is appropriate when searching for textual matches rather than fetching a known verse. However, it never says when to use this versus get_verse or get_sarga, and provides no exclusions or alternatives.

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