Numbered teaching lists

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior: it discloses the shape of the payload (members + glosses + canonical passage) and notes the tool works offline, which reinforces rather than merely repeats openWorldHint=false and tells the agent no network dependency is involved.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what the list is with illustrative examples, the second states the return contents and the offline trait. The parenthetical example sequence is slightly dense but earns its place by anchoring the resource type.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: what the record is, what fields it carries, and that lookup by name may not cover all lists. Only an explicit pointer to alternative tools for non-numbered doctrinal material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with concrete example names plus the key 'omit to see every list' instruction, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the caution that no single name enumerates everything, which is a marginal but real addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a concrete resource type – a standard numbered teaching list – and immediately grounds it with examples (four noble truths, five aggregates, seven factors of awakening). It also specifies what a result contains: Pāli members, plain-English glosses, and the canonical passage. It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighbours like topic, glossary, or lookup_pali, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving a doctrinal list by number, and 'No name lists them all' hints that exact naming is unreliable. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (topic, glossary, search_texts) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so guidance remains minimal.

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