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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that multiple refs are resolved to their logical passages, which is useful, but it does not disclose output structure or how malformed references are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the input condition and immediately states the output promise.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description plus annotations are almost sufficient to invoke it correctly. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned passage structure would complete the picture, keeping this just below perfect.

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 0%, but the description compensates by labeling 'refs' as segment references and giving a concrete example ('Berakhot 2a:1'). This adds real meaning beyond the raw string-array schema, though it does not enumerate all accepted reference formats.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('full logical passage/sugya') and anchors it with a concrete input example ('Berakhot 2a:1'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic text-retrieval or parsing siblings.

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 condition for use is implied: when you have segment references and want the containing passage. However, the description does not explicitly contrast alternatives like get_text or parse_reference, nor does it say when not to use this tool, so guidance remains implicit.

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