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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns morphology or null, and that it supports two identifier modes, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not discuss error cases, authentication, or rate limits, so the added transparency beyond annotations is modest.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by a short return-value note. It covers the action, resource, identifier modes, and return behavior in 22 words, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema. The description explains the parameter selection modes and the return value (morphology or null). It does not define the exact structure of 'morphology', but for a simple read-only lookup this is likely sufficient 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the relationship between parameters: 'by gid or by (suraId, ayaId)'. This clarifies that gid is an alternative to the suraId/ayaId pair and that suraId and ayaId must be used together, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool gets lemmas and roots for a single verse, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'lemmas and roots'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_verse and find_verses_by_lemma by specifying the morphological data and identifier modes (gid or suraId/ayaId).

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 the tool is for retrieving morphology for a single verse, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_verses_by_lemma or get_verse. The context of 'single verse' and 'lemmas and roots' gives an implied usage, but there are no direct instructions or exclusions.

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