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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a semantic (not keyword) search and it returns passages with parva and section references; it omits any note on result limits, though top_k's max of 6 is visible 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then scope, then the optional filter and return shape. The long character parenthetical is helpful for retrieval matching but is the only place the text dilutes its density.

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 semantic search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, how it filters, and the shape of the returned references. The remaining gap is result-set behavior (ordering, the top_k ceiling of 6), which is minor for this tool type.

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%, so the description should carry more weight. It clarifies the parva filter (book name or number 1-18) and implies query intent, but says nothing about top_k's role, default, or ceiling of 6, leaving one of three parameters unaddressed.

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 (semantic search) and resource (complete Mahabharata, Ganguli translation, all 18 parvas), and the topic triggers (stories, characters, events, dharma/ethics) make it easy to separate from search_gita or get_mahabharata_section without opening a 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?

"Use when the user asks about Mahabharata stories, characters..., events, or its teachings" gives a clear, quotable trigger condition. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when to prefer get_mahabharata_section or search_gita over this tool, so it falls short of a full when/when-not pairing.

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