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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'source-grounded' with 'links to the digitized texts' and that 'no interpretation applied.' It also provides row counts for several datasets (e.g., '75 motif attestations', '603 rows'), giving a sense of scale. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or potential limits.

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 long sentence but front-loaded with the main action ('Return rows from...'), followed by a detailed and useful enumeration of datasets with row counts. While it is dense, every part adds value; however, breaking it into separate sentences could improve readability.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain returns. It mentions 'rows' and 'links to the digitized texts,' but does not specify the output structure, default behavior (e.g., whether all rows are returned if no filter is given), or any limitations. Given the dataset breadth, more detail on output would be valuable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'filter' parameter; it merely repeats the dataset names already present in the enum. The schema already documents 'filter' as a case-insensitive substring match, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Return rows from one of the Wheel of Heaven comparative-mythology datasets.' It lists all available datasets and their contents, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_corpus or query_graph. The specification of 'no interpretation applied' further clarifies its function as a raw data retrieval tool.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by listing the datasets, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to siblings. For example, it does not say 'use this for raw data' or 'for graph queries, use query_graph'.

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