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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs additive context. It supplies the return payload composition, which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention the 10-verse range cap, which lives only in the schema.

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, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded ahead of the return payload. Nothing here restates the title or wastes tokens.

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 three-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the input convention, and the return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is bounds/limits guidance that lives only in the schema's numeric constraints.

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 only 33%: chapter and verse carry no descriptions, and only verse_end documents the max-10 range. The examples ('Gita 2.47') do clarify the chapter.verse convention and the x-y range convention, but the description never states the 1-18 chapter bound or the per-chapter verse bounds that the schema enforces.

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 names a specific verb (read/return) and resource (a named Bhagavad Gita verse or range) and specifies the payload: Sanskrit, IAST transliteration, and two translations. The condition 'use when the user names a specific verse' implicitly separates it from search_gita and daily_verse, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states an explicit trigger condition with concrete input examples ('Gita 2.47', 'chapter 18 verses 65-66'), so an agent can recognize when this tool applies. There is no explicit when-not clause pointing to search_gita for fuzzy or thematic queries, which is the only gap.

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