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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations, 'Long sections are paged,' but says nothing about how paging terminates, whether page is 1-indexed, or what a page contains. That is meaningful added context on top of annotations, but thin.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the routing cue. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the burden. Paging is acknowledged but never resolved (how to know more pages exist, whether the response indicates total pages), and the required 'section' parameter is undocumented anywhere. Adequate for a simple read tool, but clearly incomplete.

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 only 33% — only 'parva' is documented, while the required 'section' (1-400) and 'page' carry no descriptions. The description's mention of paging gestures at the page parameter but never explains it, and it adds nothing about the section identifier. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 ('Read the full text of one section of the Mahabharata') plus the translation used (Ganguli), and it explicitly frames itself against the sibling search_mahabharata as the retrieval counterpart to a search. An agent can distinguish this from search_mahabharata without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition: use it 'after search_mahabharata returned a relevant passage.' That names the alternative and the workflow position. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g. don't use this for browsing or for the Gita siblings), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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